ArticleEndoscopy2026
Approaches to assessing completeness of colorectal polyp resections in clinical practice: a systematic scoping review.
Article in Endoscopy, 2026. 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
Background: Protocols for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection are lacking, contributing to divergent quality standards and hindering reliable comparison of incomplete resection rates (IRRs) across resection devices, techniques, endoscopists, and institutions. We reviewed available methods to inform the development of such protocols. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30 July 2024. Studies describing the use or validation of methods for assessing completeness of polyp resection were included. Studies using recurrence detected at follow-up or histopathological resection specimen margin assessment as outcome measures were excluded, unless used as reference standards for evaluation of other methods. Results: 45 eligible studies were identified. Methods for assisting in visual confirmation of complete resection included image enhancement techniques (6 studies), artificial intelligence (1 study), and resection defect diameter (1 study). Methods for measuring IRRs based on a histopathological reference standard involved biopsy sampling (29 studies) and extended margin resection (8 studies). IRR measurement protocols differed in terms of factors such as location and number of biopsies (1-8) and widths of extended resections (1-3 mm). IRRs >10% were observed for all polyp size categories and almost all resection techniques, with considerable variability in IRRs reported across studies (biopsy sampling 0-24.2%; extended resection 0-61.1%). Conclusions: Different methods are available to assist in visual confirmation of complete resection and measuring IRRs, with considerable variability in their application, highlighting the need for standardized assessment of complete colorectal polyp resection.
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.