Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 971

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals after Colonoscopic Removal of Newly Diagnosed Adenomatous Polyps

Open access
Winawer, Sidney J., Zauber, Ann G., O'Brien, Michael J., Ho, May Nah, Gottlieb, Leonard, Sternberg, Stephen S., Waye, Jerome D., Bond, John, Schapiro, Melvin, Stewart, Edward T., Panish, Joel, Ackroyd, Fred, Kurtz, Robert C., Shike, Moshe·1993·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The identification and removal of adenomatous polyps and post-polypectomy surveillance are considered to be important for the control of colorectal cancer. In current practice, the intervals between colonoscopies after polypectomy are variable, often a year long, and not based on data from randomized clinical trials. We sought to determine whether follow-up colonoscopy at three years would detect important colonic lesions as well as follow-up colonoscopy at both one and three years. METHODS: Patients were eligible if they had one or more adenomas, no previous polypectomy, and a complete colonoscopy and all their polyps had been removed. They were randomly assigned to have follow-up colonoscopy at one and three years or at three years only. The two study end points were the detection of any adenoma, and the detection of adenomas with advanced pathological features (defined as those > 1 cm in diameter and those with high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer). RESULTS: Of 2632 eligible patients, 1418 were randomly assigned to the two follow-up groups, 699 to the two-examination group and 719 to the one-examination group. The percentage of patients with adenomas in the group examined at one and three years was 41.7 percent, as compared with 32.0 percent in the group examined at three years (P = 0.006). The percentage of patients with adenomas with advanced pathological features was the same in both groups (3.3 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy performed three years after colonoscopic removal of adenomatous polyps detects important colonic lesions as effectively as follow-up colonoscopy after both one and three years. An interval of at least three years is recommended before follow-up colonoscopy after both one and three years. An interval of at least three years is recommended before follow-up examination after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Adoption of this recommendation nationally should reduce the cost of post-polypectomy surveillance and screening.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199304013281301

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 971

Metadata

Authors
Winawer, S. J., Zauber, A. G., O'Brien, M. J., Ho, M. N., Gottlieb, L., Sternberg, S. S., Waye, J. D., Bond, J., Schapiro, M., Stewart, E. T., Panish, J., Ackroyd, F., Kurtz, R. C., & Shike, M.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1993-04
Volume
328
Issue
13
Pages
901-906
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2336715068
Cited by
971
References
1
FWCI
10.11
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: Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals after Colonoscopic Removal of Newly Diagnosed Adenomatous Polyps. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199304013281301
The paper
Winawer, S. J., Zauber, A. G., O'Brien, M. J., Ho, M. N., Gottlieb, L., Sternberg, S. S., Waye, J. D., Bond, J., Schapiro, M., Stewart, E. T., Panish, J., Ackroyd, F., Kurtz, R. C., & Shike, M. (1993). Randomized Comparison of Surveillance Intervals after Colonoscopic Removal of Newly Diagnosed Adenomatous Polyps. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199304013281301

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.