Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40426061›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025

A cooling off period: decline in the use of hot biopsy forceps technique in colonoscopy in the U.S. Medicare population 2000-2019.

Andrew J Read, Jacob E Kurlander, Akbar K Waljee, Sameer D Saini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Andrew J ReadDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3912 E Taubman Center 1500 E Medical Center Dr., SPC 2435, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA. reada@med.umich.edu.
Jacob E KurlanderDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3912 E Taubman Center 1500 E Medical Center Dr., SPC 2435, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA.
Akbar K WaljeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3912 E Taubman Center 1500 E Medical Center Dr., SPC 2435, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA.
Sameer D SainiDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, 3912 E Taubman Center 1500 E Medical Center Dr., SPC 2435, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA.

Funding

Improving Diagnosis in Gastrointestinal Cancer: Integrating Prediction Models into Routine Clinical CareK08CA279659 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Andrew J Read · 2023 to 2026
$1.1M
Using Intervention Mapping and the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop multilevel interventions to prevent upper GI bleedingK23DK118179 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI KURLANDER, JACOB ELI · 2019 to 2023
$974k
NCI NIH HHS K08 CA279659NIDDK NIH HHS K23 DK118179NIH HHS K08CA279659NIH HHS K23DK118179
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of hot biopsy forceps (with electrocautery) is no longer routinely recommended given increased complications compared to cold biopsy forceps (without electrocautery). It is unknown how often the technique is currently used in the United States (U.S.) or how its usage has changed over time.

aimTo characterize the use of hot biopsy forceps by U.S. Medicare providers over time, identify provider characteristics of those who more commonly perform this technique, and determine if there are regional differences in use of this technique within the U.S.

methodsWe performed a retrospective cross-sectional study using U.S. Medicare summary data from 2000 to 2019 to analyze the frequency of cold and hot biopsies. We used detailed provider and state summary files to characterize providers' demographics, including geographic region, to identify regional variation in use of these techniques, and identify factors associated with use of hot biopsy forceps from 2012 to 2019.

resultsThe hot biopsy forceps technique peaked in 2003 (412,165/year) and declined to 108,232/year in 2019, while the cold biopsy forceps technique increased from 482,862/year in 2000 to 1,533,558/year in 2019. Use of hot biopsy forceps was more common by non-gastroenterologists and in rural practice settings. In addition, there was up to 50-fold difference in utilization in these techniques between states (on a population normalized basis), with the highest rate of use in the southeastern U.S.

conclusionVariation in the use of hot biopsy forceps by region and provider suggests a potential area for quality improvement given the comparative advantages of the cold biopsy forceps technique. De-implementation of an existing endoscopic practice may require different approaches than implementation of a new practice.

Indexed as

ColonoscopySurgical InstrumentsBiopsyCross-Sectional StudiesElectrocoagulationFemaleHumansMaleMedicareRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesCold biopsy forcepsColonoscopyHot biopsy forcepsSnare polypectomy

Identifiers

PMID40426061
PMCPMC12117802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.