ArticleBMJ open2025
Colonic neoplasm detection in patients with
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare colorectal neoplasm detection rates between patients with
designA retrospective matched cohort study
settingTertiary care university hospital in Southern Thailand.
participantsEighty-five patients with PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes included the polyp detection rate (PDR), adenoma detection rate (ADR), advanced adenoma detection rate (aADR) and adenocarcinoma detection rate. Logistic regression was used to estimate ORs with 95% CIs.
resultsIn an unmatched analysis, the ADR (41.2% vs 26.9%, OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.16, p=0.014) and adenocarcinoma detection rate (12.9% vs 2.9%, OR 5.04, 95% CI 1.95 to 12.97, p<0.001) were significantly higher in the septicaemia group, whereas the PDR and aADR were not significantly different. In the age- and sex-matched analysis (n=50 pairs), detection rates were comparable, except for a lower PDR in the septicaemia group (44% vs 70%, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.76, p=0.008). Subgroup analysis within the septicaemia group identified older age (adjusted OR 1.04 per year, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.08, p=0.023) and diabetes mellitus (adjusted OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.15 to 6.81, p=0.034) as independent predictors of colonic neoplasm detection. Importantly, colonoscopy performed
conclusions
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.