ArticleGastroenterology report2026
Histopathologic outcomes comparison between cold snare polypectomy and cold snare EMR for colorectal polyps: a full-thickness serial sectioning analysis.
Article in Gastroenterology report, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of cold snare polypectomy (CSP) vs cold snare endoscopic mucosal resection (CS-EMR) for colorectal polyps measuring 6-15 mm [Paris IIa/Is/Isp+Ip(P)] by using full-thickness serial sectioning. Methods: This single-blind, randomized-controlled trial enrolled 214 consecutive patients with solitary colorectal polyps undergoing polypectomy at the Digestive Endoscopy Center of Xiamen Humanity Hospital between 3 September and 1 December 2024. Patients were randomized to undergo either CSP or CS-EMR. We assessed en-bloc resection and endoscopic complete resection to exclude cases converted to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) or conventional EMR. The primary outcome was the pathologic complete resection rate. The secondary outcomes included the muscularis mucosae coverage rate, submucosal coverage rate, residual lesions coverage rate at the basal margin, intraprocedural bleeding rate, delayed bleeding rate, and perforation rate. Results: All 214 cases achieved en-bloc resection and endoscopic complete resection without complications; 8 required HSP conversion and 7 required EMR conversion. Per-protocol analysis showed comparable pathologic complete resection rates between the CSP and CS-EMR groups (91% vs 89%, Conclusions: For Paris IIa/Is/Isp+Ip(P) colorectal polyps measuring 6-15 mm, CSP and CS-EMR showed comparable efficacy and safety as cold resection techniques. However, CSP had lower intraprocedural bleeding rates. CS-EMR did not demonstrate superiority over CSP. Considering cost-effectiveness and operational efficiency, CSP is recommended as the preferred method.
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.