The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Surveillance after Polypectomy
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: After patients have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, it is uncertain whether colonoscopic examination or a barium enema is the better method of surveillance. METHODS: As part of the National Polyp Study, we offered colonoscopic examination and double-contrast barium enema for surveillance to patients with newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. Although barium enema was performed first, the endoscopist did not know the results. RESULTS: A total of 973 patients underwent one or more colonoscopic examinations for surveillance. In the case of 580 of these patients, we performed 862 paired colonoscopic examinations and barium-enema examinations that met the requirements of the protocol. The findings on barium enema were positive in 222 (26 percent) of the paired examinations, including 139 of the 392 colonoscopic examinations in which one or more polyps were detected (rate of detection, 35 percent; 95 percent confidence interval, 31 to 40 percent). The proportion of examinations in which adenomatous polyps were detected by barium enema colonoscopy was significantly related to the size of the adenomas (P=0.009); the rate was 32 percent for colonoscopic examinations in which the largest adenomas detected were 0.5 cm or less, 53 percent for those in which the largest adenomas detected were 0.6 to 1.0 cm, and 48 percent for those in which the largest adenomas detected exceeded 1.0 cm. Among the 139 paired examinations with positive results on barium enema and negative results on colonoscopic examination in the same location, 19 additional polyps, 12 of which were adenomas, were detected on colonoscopic reexamination. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who have undergone colonoscopic polypectomy, colonoscopic examination is a more effective method of surveillance than double-contrast barium enema.
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
Cited by
WINAWER, S. (2003) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/gast.2003.50044 · Cited by 2,143
Self-citationQuality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Pignone, M., Rich, M., Teutsch, S. M., Berg, A. O., & Lohr, K. N. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-2-200207160-00015 · Cited by 741
Pignone, M., Saha, S., Hoerger, T., & Mandelblatt, J. (2002) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-2-200207160-00007 · Cited by 538
Polyp guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance for patients with colorectal polyps
Bond, J. (2000) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0002-9270(00)02227-9 · Cited by 382
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Winawer, S. J., Stewart, E. T., Zauber, A. G., Bond, J. H., Ansel, H., Waye, J. D., Hall, D., Hamlin, J. A., Schapiro, M., O'Brien, M. J., Sternberg, S. S., Hogan, W. J., Khilnani, M., Ackroyd, F. W., Panish, J. F., Kussin, L., Edelman, M., & Gottlieb, L. S.
- Venue
- New England Journal of Medicine
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- Published
- 2000-06-15
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 1766-1772
- ISSN
- 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
- 1533-4406
- OpenAlex
- W2341597406
- Cited by
- 588
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.31
- 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 Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Surveillance after Polypectomy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm200006153422401
- The paper
- Winawer, S. J., Stewart, E. T., Zauber, A. G., Bond, J. H., Ansel, H., Waye, J. D., Hall, D., Hamlin, J. A., Schapiro, M., O'Brien, M. J., Sternberg, S. S., Hogan, W. J., Khilnani, M., Ackroyd, F. W., Panish, J. F., Kussin, L., Edelman, M., & Gottlieb, L. S. (2000). A Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Surveillance after Polypectomy. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200006153422401
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.