ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: What we need to know in the age of screening and magnifying endoscopy techniques.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality of Bowel Preparation in the General Population.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-colonoscopic colorectal cancer (PCCRC), also known as interval CRC, is defined as CRC diagnosed more than six months after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was detected. It typically arises from missed lesions or incomplete resections and is now recognized as one of the most reliable quality indicators for assessing colonoscopy performance. With an incidence rate of 3.6% to 9.3%, PCCRC remains a significant concern, highlighting the limitations of colonoscopy in CRC screening-not only in terms of diagnostic accuracy but also in its preventive role and effectiveness in treating lesions. A range of clinical, endoscopic, and biological factors has been associated with an increased risk of PCCRC. Identifying these factors can help stratify high-risk patients, enabling earlier detection and improving preventive strategies for interval CRC. Reducing PCCRC should be a top priority for every endoscopy unit. While technological advancements will enhance polyp detection, minimize missed lesions, prevent incomplete resections, and improve overall procedural quality, the most impactful strategy remains internal self-assessment within each unit. This review should evaluate key performance metrics, including cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, PCCRC incidence, and incomplete resections-both at the individual endoscopist level and across the entire unit.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.