↓ Skip to main content

Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
45 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
Title
Comparative efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive colorectal polyps: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Published in
Surgical Endoscopy, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00464-017-5786-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoon Suk Jung, Chan Hyuk Park, Eunwoo Nam, Chang Soo Eun, Dong Il Park, Dong Soo Han

Abstract

Although cold polypectomy techniques are preferred over polypectomy with electrocautery in the management of diminutive polyps, comprehensive comparisons among various cold polypectomy techniques have not yet been fully performed. We searched for all relevant randomized controlled trials published up until October 2016 examining the efficacy of cold polypectomy techniques for diminutive polyps. Cold polypectomy techniques were classified as cold forceps polypectomy (CFP), jumbo forceps polypectomy (JFP), traditional cold snare polypectomy (CSP), and dedicated CSP, according to the type of device. A network meta-analysis was performed to calculate the direct and indirect estimates of efficacy among the cold polypectomy techniques. Seven studies with 703 patients and 968 polyps were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding comparative efficacy for complete histological eradication, there was no inconsistency in the network (Cochran's Q test, df = 4, P = 0.22; I (2) = 30%). In terms of complete histological eradication, both dedicated and traditional CSP were superior to CFP (odds ratio [OR] [95% confidence interval [CI]] 4.31 [1.92-9.66] and 2.45 [1.30-4.63], respectively); dedicated CSP was superior to traditional CSP (OR [95% CI] 1.76 [1.07-2.89]); and there was no difference between JFP versus CFP (OR [95% CI] 1.36 [0.40-4.61]). Regarding tissue retrieval rate, there was no difference between dedicated versus traditional CSP (OR [95% CI] 1.03 [0.44-2.38]). The procedure time for CSP was comparable to that of CFP. Dedicated CSP was shown to be superior to other cold polypectomy techniques in terms of complete histological eradication. Cold polypectomy using a dedicated snare can be recommended for the removal of diminutive colorectal polyps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Master 1 3%
Other 3 10%
Unknown 16 52%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 35%
Engineering 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 December 2019.
All research outputs
#7,601,126
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,689
of 6,175 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,824
of 317,284 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#65
of 144 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,175 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,284 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 144 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.