ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2025
Resect and Retrieve Colorectal Polyps: Time for New Insights.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 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.
- Development and validation of a predictive model for pathological upgrading in colorectal polyps based on endoscopic forceps biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polyp retrieval following colorectal polypectomy remains a critical step for histopathological analysis and determining appropriate surveillance intervals. Despite reported retrieval rates exceeding 90% in the literature, significant heterogeneity persists in clinical practice, particularly for polyps < 10 mm, due to the lack of standardized retrieval methods. This review synthesizes current evidence on polyp retrieval techniques, the impact of lesion size, and device-specific considerations, including suction-based methods, retrieval nets, and other approaches such as the water-bolus and water-slider techniques. We also examine the clinical utility and limitations of the "resect and discard" and "diagnose and leave in situ" strategies, highlighting barriers to widespread implementation such as medico-legal risks, variability in optical diagnosis, and discrepancies across international guidelines. The integration of advanced imaging technologies, including high-definition endoscopy, virtual chromoendoscopy, and artificial intelligence-driven computer-aided diagnosis (CADx), represent promising tools to help in increasing the diagnostic accuracy of diminutive polyps. As post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations remain tethered to histological findings, this review underlines the need for updated, evidence-based frameworks that take into account technological advancements while ensuring diagnostic precision, cost-effectiveness, and patient safety in colorectal cancer prevention.
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.