Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 588

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Comparison of Colonoscopy and Double-Contrast Barium Enema for Surveillance after Polypectomy

Open access
Winawer, Sidney J., Stewart, Edward T., Zauber, Ann G., Bond, John H., Ansel, Howard, Waye, Jerome D., Hall, Deborah, Hamlin, J. Andrew, Schapiro, Melvin, O'Brien, Michael J., Sternberg, Stephen S., Hogan, Walter J., Khilnani, Mansho, Ackroyd, Frederick W., Panish, Joel F., Kussin, Larry, Edelman, Martin, Gottlieb, Leonard S.·2000·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm200006153422401

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.

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

Cited by

See all 588

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
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.