The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Local recurrence has been observed after endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions. The indications for follow-up colonoscopy and the optimal time interval are currently unclear. The aims of this systematic review were to assess the frequency of local recurrence after EMR, to identify risk factors for recurrence, and to provide follow-up recommendations. METHODS: A literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. EMR was defined as endoscopic snare resection after submucosal fluid injection for removal of nonpedunculated adenomas and early carcinomas. Local recurrence was subdivided into early recurrence (detected at the first follow-up colonoscopy) and late recurrence (detected after ≥ 1 previous normal colonoscopy). A random effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled estimate of risk of recurrence. RESULTS: A total of 33 studies were included. The mean recurrence risk after EMR was 15 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 12 % - 19 %). Recurrence risk was higher after piecemeal resection (20 %; 95 %CI 16 % - 25 %) than after en bloc resection (3 %; 95 %CI 2 % - 5 %; P < 0.0001). In 15 studies that differentiated between early and late recurrences, 152/173 recurrences (88 %) occurred early. In four studies with follow-up at 3, 6, and ≥ 12 months, 19/25 (76 %) recurrences were detected at 3 months, increasing to 24 (96 %) at 6 months. In multivariable analysis, only piecemeal resection was associated with recurrence (3 of 3 studies). CONCLUSION: Local recurrence after EMR of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions occurs in 3 % of en bloc resections and 20 % of piecemeal resections. Piecemeal resection was the only independent risk factor for recurrence. As more than 90 % of recurrences are detected at 6 months after EMR, we propose that 6 months is the optimal initial follow-up interval.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Lieberman, D. A., Rex, D. K., Winawer, S. J., Giardiello, F. M., Johnson, D. A., & Levin, T. R. (2012) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.06.001 · Cited by 1,892
Evaluation of the Quality of Prognosis Studies in Systematic Reviews
Hayden, J. A., Côté, P., & Bombardier, C. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-6-200603210-00010 · Cited by 1,452
Cairns, S. R., Scholefield, J. H., Steele, R. J., Dunlop, M. G., Thomas, H. J. W., Evans, G. D., Eaden, J. A., Rutter, M. D., Atkin, W. P., Saunders, B. P., et al. (2010) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gut.2009.179804 · Cited by 1,141
Colorectal Cancer in Patients Under Close Colonoscopic Surveillance
Robertson, D. J., Greenberg, E. R., Beach, M., Sandler, R. S., Ahnen, D., Haile, R. W., Burke, C. A., Snover, D. C., Bresalier, R. S., McKeown-Eyssen, G., et al. (2005) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.05.012 · Cited by 443
Tanaka, S., Haruma, K., Oka, S., Takahashi, R., Kunihiro, M., Kitadai, Y., Yoshihara, M., Shimamoto, F., & Chayama, K. (2001) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1067/mge.2001.115729 · Cited by 335
Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study
Cottet, V., Jooste, V., Fournel, I., Bouvier, A.-M., Faivre, J., & Bonithon-Kopp, C. (2012) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300295 · Cited by 279
Outcomes of EMR of defiant colorectal lesions directed to an endoscopy referral center
Buchner, A. M., Guarner‐Argente, C., & Ginsberg, G. G. (2012) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.02.060 · Cited by 249
Khashab, M. A., Eid, E. F., Rusche, M., & Rex, D. K. (2009) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.10.037 · Cited by 193
Local recurrence after endoscopic resection of colorectal tumors
Hotta, K., Fujii, T., Saito, Y., & Matsuda, T. (2008) · International Journal of Colorectal Disease · doi:10.1007/s00384-008-0596-8 · Cited by 153
Cited by
Rutter, M. D., East, J., Rees, C. J., Cripps, N., Docherty, J., Dolwani, S., Kaye, P. V., Monahan, K. J., Novelli, M. R., Plumb, A., et al. (2020) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319858 · Cited by 380
Kaminski, M. F., Thomas‐Gibson, S., Bugajski, M., Bretthauer, M., Rees, C. J., Dekker, E., Hoff, G., Jover, R., Suchanek, S., Ferlitsch, M., et al. (2017) · United European Gastroenterology Journal · doi:10.1177/2050640617700014 · Cited by 346
Gupta, S., Lieberman, D., Anderson, J. C., Burke, C. A., Dominitz, J. A., Kaltenbach, T., Robertson, D. J., Shaukat, A., Syngal, S., & Rex, D. K. (2020) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000544 · Cited by 343
Gupta, S., Lieberman, D., Anderson, J. C., Burke, C. A., Dominitz, J. A., Kaltenbach, T., Robertson, D. J., Shaukat, A., Syngal, S., & Rex, D. K. (2020) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2020.01.014 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Belderbos, T., Leenders, M., Moons, L., & Siersema, P.
- Venue
- Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Georg Thieme Verlag KG
- Published
- 2014-03-26
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 05
- Pages
- 388-402
- ISSN
- 0013-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1438-8812
- OpenAlex
- W1992175624
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 12
- FWCI
- 2.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1055/s-0034-1364970
- The paper
- Belderbos, T., Leenders, M., Moons, L., & Siersema, P. (2014). Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1364970
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.
