The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated?
Open accessAbstract
Background and aims: Screening colonoscopy is thought to be a powerful and cost-effective tool to reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Whether and when colonoscopy with negative findings has to be repeated is not well defined. The aim of this study was to assess the long term risk of clinically manifest colorectal cancer among subjects with negative findings at colonoscopy. Patients: 380 cases and 485 controls participating in a population based case-control study in Germany. Methods: Detailed history and results of previous colonoscopies were obtained by interview and from medical records. Adjusted relative risks of colorectal cancer among subjects with a previous negative colonoscopy compared with those without previous colonoscopy were estimated according to time since colonoscopy. Results: Subjects with previous negative colonoscopy had a 74% lower risk of colorectal cancer than those without previous colonoscopy (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 0.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.16 to 0.40)). This low risk was seen even if the colonoscopy had been done up to 20 or more years previously. Particularly low risks were seen for sigma cancer (aOR = 0.13 (0.04 to 0.43)) and for rectal cancer (aOR = 0.19 (0.09 to 0.39)), and after a negative screening colonoscopy at ages 55 to 64 (aOR = 0.17 (0.08 to 0.39)) and older (aOR = 0.21 (0.10 to 0.41)). Conclusions: Subjects with negative findings at colonoscopy are at very low risk of colorectal cancer and might not need to undergo repeat colonoscopy for 20 years or more, if at all. The possibility of extending screening intervals to 20 years or more might reduce complications and increase the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy based screening programmes.
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
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
Cited by
Quality 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
Association of Colonoscopy and Death From Colorectal Cancer
Baxter, N. N., Goldwasser, M. A., Paszat, L. F., Saskin, R., Urbach, D. R., & Rabeneck, L. (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-1-200901060-00306 · Cited by 1,254
Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Petrini, J. L., Baron, T. H., Chak, A., Cohen, J., Deal, S. E., Hoffman, B., Jacobson, B. C., Mergener, K., Petersen, B. T., et al. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x · Cited by 845
Protection From Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy: A Population-Based, Case–Control Study
Brenner, H., Chang-Claude, J., Seiler, C. M., Rickert, A., & Hoffmeister, M. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-1-201101040-00004 · Cited by 773
Self-citationProtection From Right- and Left-Sided Colorectal Neoplasms After Colonoscopy: Population-Based Study
Brenner, H., Hoffmeister, M., Arndt, V., Stegmaier, C., Altenhofen, L., & Haug, U. (2010) · JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/djp436 · Cited by 573
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Brenner, H., Chang-Claude, J., Seiler, C. M., Stürmer, T., & Hoffmeister, M.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2006-02-09
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 1145-1150
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2156620229
- Cited by
- 184
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.82
- 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: Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2005.087130
- The paper
- Brenner, H., Chang-Claude, J., Seiler, C. M., Stürmer, T., & Hoffmeister, M. (2006). Does a negative screening colonoscopy ever need to be repeated? Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2005.087130
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.