Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 411

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An updated Asia Pacific Consensus Recommendations on colorectal cancer screening

Sung, J J Y, Ng, S C, Chan, F K L, Chiu, H M, Kim, H S, Matsuda, T, Ng, S S M, Lau, J Y W, Zheng, S, Adler, S, Reddy, N, Yeoh, K G, Tsoi, K K F, Ching, J Y L, Kuipers, E J, Rabeneck, L, Young, G P, Steele, R J, Lieberman, D, Goh, K L·2015·Gut

Abstract

Objective: Since the publication of the first Asia Pacific Consensus on Colorectal Cancer (CRC) in 2008, there are substantial advancements in the science and experience of implementing CRC screening. The Asia Pacific Working Group aimed to provide an updated set of consensus recommendations. Design: Members from 14 Asian regions gathered to seek consensus using other national and international guidelines, and recent relevant literature published from 2008 to 2013. A modified Delphi process was adopted to develop the statements. Results: Age range for CRC screening is defined as 50–75 years. Advancing age, male, family history of CRC, smoking and obesity are confirmed risk factors for CRC and advanced neoplasia. A risk-stratified scoring system is recommended for selecting high-risk patients for colonoscopy. Quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) instead of guaiac-based faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) is preferred for average-risk subjects. Ancillary methods in colonoscopy, with the exception of chromoendoscopy, have not proven to be superior to high-definition white light endoscopy in identifying adenoma. Quality of colonoscopy should be upheld and quality assurance programme should be in place to audit every aspects of CRC screening. Serrated adenoma is recognised as a risk for interval cancer. There is no consensus on the recruitment of trained endoscopy nurses for CRC screening. Conclusions: Based on recent data on CRC screening, an updated list of recommendations on CRC screening is prepared. These consensus statements will further enhance the implementation of CRC screening in the Asia Pacific region.

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 · 10.1136/gutjnl-2013-306503

Cites

2 of 2 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

Cited by

See all 411

Metadata

Authors
Sung, J. J. Y., Ng, S. C., Chan, F. K. L., Chiu, H. M., Kim, H. S., Matsuda, T., Ng, S. S. M., Lau, J. Y. W., Zheng, S., Adler, S., Reddy, N., Yeoh, K. G., Tsoi, K. K. F., Ching, J. Y. L., Kuipers, E. J., Rabeneck, L., Young, G. P., Steele, R. J., Lieberman, D., & Goh, K. L.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-03-19
Volume
64
Issue
1
Pages
121-132
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2131101814
Cited by
411
References
2
FWCI
15.94
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

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.