ArticleJournal of Taibah University Medical Sciences2026
Post-polypectomy surveillance documentation and guideline concordance: A retrospective clinical audit of physician documentation at a tertiary Saudi hospital.
Article in Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Post-polypectomy surveillance is essential for colorectal cancer prevention, but adherence to guidelines varies and data from KSA are limited. This study evaluated surveillance documentation and guideline concordance at King Saud University Medical City. Methods: A retrospective audit included patients aged 18-75 years who underwent screening colonoscopy with polypectomy. Documented surveillance intervals were compared with USMSTF 2020 guidelines, and absence of a documented plan was considered a primary quality metric. Results: Among 207 patients, 74.9% had no documented surveillance plan. Among the 52 patients (25.1%) with a plan, only 29 (14.0% overall) were guideline-concordant, whereas 20 (9.7%) were over-surveyed and 3 (1.4%) under-surveyed. The majority of plans (45/52) were documented by gastroenterologists and the remaining seven by primary care physicians. Conclusion: Surveillance documentation is markedly limited, with suboptimal adherence, highlighting the need for structured interventions to improve guideline-based practice.
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.