A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?
By C. J. Bowles, R. Leicester, C. Romaya, E. Swarbrick, C. Williams, O. Epstein. Gut, 2004
673 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Microbiology, Oncology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fe1fb840462f7ac68e46261b7a259201aa9a977d
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
- S. Cairns
- J. Scholefield
- M. Rutter
- R. Steele
- M. Dunlop
- B. Saunders
- J. Rijn
- H. Thomas
Citations in the corpus
- Polyp Miss Rate Determined by Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review (2006, background): “in which the target of a complete examination to the cecum in 90% of the patients was not achieved”
- Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance in moderate and high risk groups (update from 2002) (2010, background): “The perforation rate after polypectomy is 22 (CI 13.8 to 33.3) per 10 000. Post-polypectomy bleeding occurs in a further 89 (CI 71.5 to 109.5) per 10 000. The rate of colonoscopy-related mortality is low but appreciable, being reported in specialist centres as 0.83 per 10 000 procedures (CI 0.025 to”