Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 563

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A Pooled Analysis of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Diagnoses After Colonoscopic Polypectomy

Open access
Martínez, María Elena, Baron, John A., Lieberman, David A., Schatzkin, Arthur, Lanza, Elaine, Winawer, Sidney J., Zauber, Ann G., Jiang, Ruiyun, Ahnen, Dennis J., Bond, John H., Church, Timothy R., Robertson, Douglas J., Smith–Warner, Stephanie A., Jacobs, Elizabeth T., Alberts, David S., Greenberg, E. Robert·2009·Gastroenterology

Abstract

Background & Aims Limited data exist regarding the actual risk of developing advanced adenomas and cancer following polypectomy or the factors that determine risk. Methods We pooled individual data from 8 prospective studies comprising 9167 men and women aged 22 to 80 with previously-resected colorectal adenomas to quantify their risk of developing subsequent advanced adenoma or cancer as well as identify factors associated with development of advanced colorectal neoplasms during surveillance. Results During a median follow-up of 47.2 months, advanced colorectal neoplasia was diagnosed in 1082 (11.8%) of the patients, 58 of whom (0.6%) had invasive cancer. Risk of a metachronous advanced adenoma was higher among patients with 5 or more baseline adenomas (24.1%; SE=2.2) and those with an adenoma 20 mm in size or greater (19.3%; SE=1.5). Risk factor patterns were similar for advanced adenomas and invasive cancer. In multivariate analyses, older age (P <0.0001 for trend) and male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.19–1.65) were significantly associated with increased risk of metachronous advanced neoplasia, as were the number and size of prior adenomas (P <0.0001 for trend), the presence of villous features (OR, 1.28; 95% CI 1.07–1.52), and proximal location (OR, 1.68; 95% CI 1.43–1.98). High-grade dysplasia was not independently associated with metachronous advanced neoplasia after adjustment for other adenoma characteristics. Conclusions Occurrence of advanced colorectal neoplasia is common following polypectomy. Factors that are most strongly associated with risk of advanced neoplasia are patient age and the number and size of prior adenomas.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.007

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 563

Metadata

Authors
Martínez, M. E., Baron, J. A., Lieberman, D. A., Schatzkin, A., Lanza, E., Winawer, S. J., Zauber, A. G., Jiang, R., Ahnen, D. J., Bond, J. H., Church, T. R., Robertson, D. J., Smith–Warner, S. A., Jacobs, E. T., Alberts, D. S., & Greenberg, E. R.
Venue
Gastroenterology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-03
Volume
136
Issue
3
Pages
832-841
ISSN
0016-5085 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153022868
Cited by
563
References
4
FWCI
10.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Pooled Analysis of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Diagnoses After Colonoscopic Polypectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.007
The paper
Martínez, M. E., Baron, J. A., Lieberman, D. A., Schatzkin, A., Lanza, E., Winawer, S. J., Zauber, A. G., Jiang, R., Ahnen, D. J., Bond, J. H., Church, T. R., Robertson, D. J., Smith–Warner, S. A., Jacobs, E. T., Alberts, D. S., & Greenberg, E. R. (2009). A Pooled Analysis of Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Diagnoses After Colonoscopic Polypectomy. Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2008.12.007

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.