Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum

Open access
East, James E, Atkin, Wendy S, Bateman, Adrian C, Clark, Susan K, Dolwani, Sunil, Ket, Shara N, Leedham, Simon J, Phull, Perminder S, Rutter, Matt D, Shepherd, Neil A, Tomlinson, Ian, Rees, Colin J·2017·Gut

Abstract

Serrated polyps have been recognised in the last decade as important premalignant lesions accounting for between 15% and 30% of colorectal cancers. There is therefore a clinical need for guidance on how to manage these lesions; however, the evidence base is limited. A working group was commission by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy section to review the available evidence and develop a position statement to provide clinical guidance until the evidence becomes available to support a formal guideline. The scope of the position statement was wide-ranging and included: evidence that serrated lesions have premalignant potential; detection and resection of serrated lesions; surveillance strategies after detection of serrated lesions; special situations—serrated polyposis syndrome (including surgery) and serrated lesions in colitis; education, audit and benchmarks and research questions. Statements on these issues were proposed where the evidence was deemed sufficient, and re-evaluated modified via a Delphi process until >80% agreement was reached. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) tool was used to assess the strength of evidence and strength of recommendation for finalised statements. Key recommendation: we suggest that until further evidence on the efficacy or otherwise of surveillance are published, patients with sessile serrated lesions (SSLs) that appear associated with a higher risk of future neoplasia or colorectal cancer (SSLs ≥10 mm or serrated lesions harbouring dysplasia including traditional serrated adenomas) should be offered a one-off colonoscopic surveillance examination at 3 years (weak recommendation, low quality evidence, 90% agreement).

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-2017-314005

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 332

Metadata

Authors
East, J. E., Atkin, W. S., Bateman, A. C., Clark, S. K., Dolwani, S., Ket, S. N., Leedham, S. J., Phull, P. S., Rutter, M. D., Shepherd, N. A., Tomlinson, I., & Rees, C. J.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-04-27
Volume
66
Issue
7
Pages
1181-1196
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2608438922
Cited by
332
References
4
FWCI
15.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

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: British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314005
The paper
East, J. E., Atkin, W. S., Bateman, A. C., Clark, S. K., Dolwani, S., Ket, S. N., Leedham, S. J., Phull, P. S., Rutter, M. D., Shepherd, N. A., Tomlinson, I., & Rees, C. J. (2017). British Society of Gastroenterology position statement on serrated polyps in the colon and rectum. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314005

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.