ArticleBMC cancer2026
Missed anal and anorectal tumors during endoscopic examinations: a ten-year retrospective study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
backgroundThe extent to which anal and anorectal tumors are missed during endoscopic examinations has not been thoroughly investigated. This study investigated the clinical features of tumors that were missed during endoscopic examinations.
aimTo investigate and analyze the endoscopic and clinical features of missed anal and anorectal tumors.
methodsAll patients diagnosed with anal and anorectal tumors between 2014 and 2024 at West China Hospital were included in this retrospective cohort analysis. Demographic data, tumor characteristics, endoscopic findings, and missed diagnosis records were extracted from electronic medical records and telephone follow-up. A descriptive and error-classification analysis was performed to identify the reasons for missed diagnoses during endoscopy.
resultsDescriptive and error-classification analysis among the 83 enrolled patients, 10 (7 with adenocarcinoma and 3 with squamous cell carcinoma) had undergone previous endoscopic examinations with negative diagnoses, resulting in a missed detection proportion of 12.0%. Six missed cases with 15 prior colonoscopies in which the lesions were overlooked had complete medical records. The mean number of endoscopic procedures performed prior to the definitive diagnosis was 2.5 (range: 1–5), with an average diagnostic delay of 43.4 months (range: 1–82). The causes of missed diagnoses included exposure errors (n = 8), judgment errors (n = 6), and biopsy errors (n = 1). The proportion of endoscopic rectal retroflexion to observe anus was 20% .
conclusionThe missed diagnosis proportion of anal and anorectal tumors was high during endoscopic examination. Comprehensive endoscopic observation and enhanced recognition of the endoscopic features of anal tumors are essential.
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.