Draft notice (pre-launch): This article is a pre-launch draft. Final medical review by an SMC-registered specialist is pending. Information is based on peer-reviewed evidence but should not be used for clinical decisions until the reviewer disclosure line is added.
Maybe your GP just handed you a referral after a positive Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT). Maybe you turned 50 and a screening invitation arrived. Maybe a parent or sibling was diagnosed with colorectal cancer and your doctor said, "We should look earlier than the standard schedule." All three roads lead to the same question: what actually happens during a colonoscopy in Singapore, and is it worth the prep?
A colonoscopy is more than a screening test. It is the only common procedure where the doctor can both find a polyp and remove it in the same visit, before it has time to become something more serious (PMID 30176072, 30946027). That dual capability is why the Ministry of Health recommends it as a screening option from age 50 for average-risk Singaporeans, and earlier for those with significant family history.
This guide walks through who needs a colonoscopy, how to prepare, what the procedure feels like, the safety numbers (with the citations), and what happens next. It is part of our colorectal surgery editorial hub.
At a glance
- Standard screening age in Singapore: 50 for average-risk adults under MOH's Integrated Screening Programme. Earlier if a first-degree relative had colorectal cancer.
- Time on the day: the procedure itself takes 20-30 minutes; expect 2-3 hours total at the clinic with prep, sedation and recovery.
- Sedation: in Singapore most colonoscopies are done under propofol, administered by an anaesthetist. Most patients recall nothing of the procedure (PMID 41147535, 31926966).
- Perforation risk: about 0.5 per 1,000 procedures based on a large meta-analysis of screening colonoscopies (PMID 37906565, 31563271).
- Post-polypectomy bleeding: roughly 2 to 10 per 1,000 procedures, mostly minor and self-limiting (PMID 31563271).
- After a normal colonoscopy with no risk factors: next surveillance is typically 10 years (PMID 36408602).
- Family-history rule of thumb: start screening at age 40 OR 10 years younger than the youngest affected first-degree relative was diagnosed, whichever is sooner (PMID 31722908, 36222830).
- GLP-1 weight-loss medication (semaglutide, tirzepatide): tell your doctor in advance. Recent meta-analyses show higher residual stomach contents on these drugs, which can affect sedation safety (PMID 39694296, 39142543, 39401599).
- MediSave: can be used for both screening and therapeutic colonoscopies in public and private hospitals; exact claimable amount depends on procedure type and ward class.
What colonoscopy actually is
A colonoscopy is a medical procedure that allows a doctor to examine the inner lining of your large intestine, which includes the colon and rectum (PMID 30946027). The instrument used is a colonoscope, a thin, flexible tube about the thickness of a finger, equipped with a light and a small camera at its tip. This camera transmits a live video feed to a monitor, enabling the doctor, typically a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon, to navigate the entire length of the colon and look for any abnormalities (PMID 30946027).
The primary functions of a colonoscopy are both diagnostic and therapeutic. It is the gold standard for detecting colorectal polyps, which are abnormal growths on the colon wall (PMID 30176072, 30946027). While most polyps are benign, some can develop into cancer over time; removing them is a key strategy in preventing colorectal cancer (PMID 30176072, 30946027). If polyps or other suspicious tissues are found during the procedure, specialised tools can be passed through the colonoscope to perform a biopsy (taking a small tissue sample) or a polypectomy (removing the entire polyp) (PMID 30176072, 36787428).
How well it works (and what makes a "good" colonoscopy)
Not every colonoscopy is equal. The single quality metric that matters most for patients is the adenoma detection rate (ADR). This is the percentage of screening colonoscopies in which the doctor finds at least one precancerous polyp (PMID 37080261, 31595401, 35324485). The higher a doctor's ADR, the lower their patients' risk of developing colorectal cancer in the years after the procedure (PMID 37080261, 31595401). If you are choosing where to have one done, this is a fair question to ask the clinic.
Three things measurably move that number. High-definition cameras detect more polyps than older standard-definition scopes (PMID 31954133). Add-on devices that flatten the colon folds (Endocuff, EndoRings) catch polyps hiding behind ridges (PMID 32830810, 35915293, 33140884, 35324485). And artificial-intelligence assistance, where a deep-learning system flags suspicious areas in real time, has been shown across meta-analyses to meaningfully lift detection rates (PMID 32267558). AI-assisted colonoscopy is already available in some Singapore clinics; ask whether it is part of the package.
When a polyp is found, the doctor will usually remove it on the spot. Smaller polyps (≤10 mm) are increasingly removed with cold snare polypectomy. No electrical heat is used, delayed bleeding is less common, and effectiveness is comparable to the older hot-snare method (PMID 30176072, 36787428, 30639542, 36750222, 38795735). For larger sessile polyps (≥15-20 mm), the field is shifting from traditional hot endoscopic mucosal resection (H-EMR) toward cold EMR, again driven by a better bleeding profile (PMID 39725332, 40101793, 38019045, 40029072, 38795735, 38964854). For genuinely difficult lesions there are advanced techniques like underwater EMR and endoscopic full-thickness resection (PMID 32577813, 36054955). The takeaway for patients: ask which technique is planned for your case and why. The answer should make sense.
Who actually needs one
Most patients fall into one of four buckets. Knowing which bucket you are in changes the conversation with your GP.
You turned 50 and have no symptoms. This is the standard screening case. Singapore's Integrated Screening Programme starts with a free annual Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) at CHAS clinics. If your FIT comes back positive, the next step is a colonoscopy to find the source of the blood. Patients who prefer a single, definitive test can also opt for a primary screening colonoscopy from age 50, repeated once every 10 years if normal.
You have a first-degree relative with colorectal cancer. This is the bucket where the rules change. Multiple meta-analyses confirm that a parent, sibling, or child with colorectal cancer roughly doubles your own lifetime risk (PMID 31435179, 39513348, 31525516). The practical rule of thumb most guidelines use: start screening at age 40, OR 10 years younger than the age at which the youngest affected relative was diagnosed, whichever comes first (PMID 31722908, 36222830, 31722908, 37838786). If your aunt was diagnosed at 45, you should be talking to a doctor at 35, not 50.
You have symptoms. Persistent change in bowel habits, blood in the stool, ongoing abdominal pain, or unexplained weight loss are not "wait until you're 50" signs. A colonoscopy is the most direct way to look at the lining of the colon and rule out the worrying causes (PMID 33148393). Symptomatic colonoscopy is diagnostic, not screening, which usually changes how MediSave applies.
You have a condition that needs surveillance. Long-standing inflammatory bowel disease (ulcerative colitis or Crohn's) raises colorectal cancer risk over time (PMID 33385426, 31502284, 32034916, 39825829). Serrated Polyposis Syndrome carries an elevated risk that needs intensive monitoring (PMID 34089849). Patients recovering from CT-proven acute diverticulitis are often asked to do a follow-up colonoscopy, although the absolute likelihood of finding cancer in this setting is low (PMID 31260589, 36529882, 32271220). If you fall into this bucket, your specialist will set the cadence.
How safe it actually is
Colonoscopy is one of the safest procedures in medicine, but it is not zero-risk and patients deserve the real numbers.
Perforation, a tear in the colon wall, is the headline fear. The pooled incidence in a large meta-analysis of screening colonoscopies sits at roughly 0.5 per 1,000 procedures (PMID 37906565, 31563271). The risk is marginally higher when polyps are removed than when the procedure is purely diagnostic (PMID 31563271). To put that in perspective: in a busy clinic doing 1,000 colonoscopies a year, a serious perforation might happen once or twice.
Bleeding is more common than perforation but usually less serious. Most bleeding happens after a polypectomy, and most resolves on its own. The trickier scenario is delayed post-polypectomy bleeding (DPPB), bleeding that shows up days to two weeks after the procedure. For large polyps (≥20 mm) and those on the right side of the colon, the doctor may place a small prophylactic clip on the polyp site to reduce that risk; for smaller lesions, clipping does not appear to add benefit (PMID 33751224, 33638894).
Sedation is the part patients usually worry about most, and the part that has changed most in Singapore practice. Propofol, administered by an anaesthetist, is now the dominant sedation choice in private and most public colonoscopy units. Meta-analyses comparing propofol to traditional midazolam-plus-opioid regimens consistently show better patient satisfaction, faster recovery, and a comparable safety profile when properly administered (PMID 41147535, 30479163, 31926966). Most patients have no recollection of the procedure itself and feel ready to leave the clinic within an hour.
The honest framing: the risks are real, the absolute numbers are small, and the most common complications are detectable and manageable when they happen.
Where the evidence is still moving
Patients sometimes assume medicine has every answer locked down. It doesn't. Three areas are actively shifting and worth knowing about.
How long should you wait before the next one? Guidelines exist, but the precise interval after polyp removal is still being refined. A meta-analysis pooling more than 800,000 participants showed that the cumulative incidence of colorectal cancer stays very low for up to 10 years after a normal colonoscopy or one where only low-risk adenomas were removed (PMID 36408602). Yet a separate systematic review found that many doctors schedule surveillance scopes earlier than guidelines recommend (PMID 37967829). The honest read: ask your doctor to justify the next-scope date, especially if it feels too soon.
GLP-1 weight-loss medications change the picture. Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and tirzepatide (Mounjaro, Zepbound) slow gastric emptying. Multiple recent meta-analyses have found that patients on these drugs are more likely to have residual stomach contents during endoscopy, which raises aspiration risk during sedation (PMID 39694296, 39142543, 39401599, 40634731). Anaesthesia and gastroenterology societies have issued interim guidance, usually involving a longer fasting window or temporarily holding doses, but the protocols are still being standardised. If you are on one of these medications, mention it at the consultation, not on the day.
Cold versus hot for large polyps. As covered above, cold snare techniques look safer for large polyps, but long-term recurrence data is still being collected. This is not yet a settled debate; it is a debate that is moving in one direction (PMID 39725332, 40101793, 38019045, 40029072, 38795735, 38964854). If your doctor recommends a specific approach, it is reasonable to ask whether they have looked at the latest cold-versus-hot trials.
What the day actually looks like
The procedure is the part most patients are nervous about. The prep is the part that actually requires effort.
The week before. Tell your clinic about every medication you take. Blood thinners, anti-platelets, iron supplements, and diabetes drugs (especially GLP-1 medications) often need to be adjusted or paused, but only on a doctor's instruction, never on your own.
The day before. This is where bowel preparation begins. The standard instruction in Singapore is a clear liquid diet for 24 hours before the procedure (PMID 33285772). Some meta-analyses suggest a low-residue diet (a step up from clear liquids) is equally effective and easier to tolerate (PMID 33285772, 33795626). Ask your clinic if it is an option. In the evening, you start drinking a polyethylene-glycol (PEG) laxative solution. The taste is not the worst part. The volume is. Drink it on schedule and stay near a toilet. A clean colon is the difference between a high-quality examination and one where the doctor recommends repeating the whole thing (PMID 33285772, 39252470). Multimedia and mobile-app prep guides have been shown to materially improve completion rates and polyp detection (PMID 33735320, 34694227, 32347798). If your clinic offers one, use it.
The morning of. Most clinics ask you to arrive 30 to 60 minutes early. You will change, an IV will be placed, and the anaesthetist will check you in. Once sedation goes in, the procedure itself takes 20 to 30 minutes (PMID 41147535, 31926966). You will not remember it.
Recovery. You will wake up in a monitored bay, feeling slightly bloated from the air used to inflate the colon during the exam. That resolves quickly. You will need someone to drive or accompany you home. Do not drive, sign legal documents, or operate machinery for the rest of the day. The sedation is more lingering than it feels.
Follow-up. Before you leave, the doctor usually shares preliminary findings. If biopsies or polypectomy samples were taken, full pathology results come back in about a week. Based on what was found, the doctor will set a date for your next surveillance scope, anywhere from 1 to 10 years out, depending on findings and risk factors (PMID 36408602). Put it in your calendar the day you get home; surveillance only works if it actually happens.
Frequently asked questions
Is a colonoscopy painful? Most patients in Singapore have the procedure under propofol sedation, administered by an anaesthetist. Studies comparing propofol to traditional sedation show higher patient satisfaction and faster recovery (PMID 41147535, 31926966). Most patients recall nothing of the procedure itself.
Can I use MediSave for a colonoscopy? Yes. MediSave covers a portion of colonoscopy costs in both public and private hospitals. The exact claimable amount depends on whether the procedure is screening (diagnostic) or therapeutic (where polyps are removed) and on the ward class. Confirm current limits with your clinic before the procedure.
What happens if my Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) is positive? A positive FIT does not mean cancer; it means your stool sample contained traces of blood that need investigating. Under Singapore's Integrated Screening Programme the standard next step is a follow-up colonoscopy to find the source (PMID 33148393).
What if a polyp is found during the procedure? The doctor will usually remove it in the same visit, a step called polypectomy. The tissue is sent to pathology, and the result determines your next surveillance interval (PMID 36408602, 36787428). Most polyps are benign, and removing them is a key part of preventing colorectal cancer (PMID 30176072).
When should screening start if a parent or sibling had colorectal cancer? Major guidelines recommend starting at age 40 OR 10 years younger than the age your youngest affected first-degree relative was diagnosed, whichever is sooner (PMID 31722908, 36222830). Tell your GP about the family history early; the conversation often shifts the start date and the screening modality.
Can I drive home after a colonoscopy? No. Sedation effects last for several hours. You should arrange for someone to take you home and avoid driving, operating machinery, or making important decisions for the rest of the day.
Should I stop GLP-1 medication (semaglutide, tirzepatide) before a colonoscopy? Tell your doctor and your anaesthetist in advance. Recent meta-analyses found that patients on GLP-1 receptor agonists have higher rates of retained gastric contents during endoscopy, which raises aspiration risk during sedation (PMID 39694296, 39142543, 39401599, 40634731). Anaesthesia societies have issued interim guidance that may include an extended fasting window or holding doses before the procedure. Do not stop the medication on your own without discussing it with the prescribing doctor.
What if the bowel prep is awful and I cannot finish it? Tell the clinic. An incomplete prep makes the examination harder and may mean the procedure is rescheduled. Meta-analyses show that enhanced patient instructions, including mobile-app reminders and multimedia guides, materially improve prep quality and polyp detection rates (PMID 33735320, 34694227, 32347798). Ask the clinic for their preparation guide before the day.
Evidence summary
This article is based on a review of 115 scientific papers, including 85 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or clinical guidelines (Tier 1 evidence), 3 randomised controlled trials (Tier 2 evidence), and 2 cohort or observational studies (Tier 3 evidence). The remaining papers were untagged. No papers in our search pool were identified as retracted.
References
1. De Ceglie, A. et al. (2019). Meta-analysis of the role of colonoscopy after an episode of left-sided acute diverticulitis. _The British journal of surgery_. (PMID 31260589)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31260589) 2. Desai, M. et al. (2023). Endoscopic findings after CT proven acute diverticulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. _ANZ journal of surgery_. (PMID 36529882)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36529882) 3. Jain, A. et al. (2023). Endoscopy Unit Level Interventions to Improve Adenoma Detection Rate: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. _Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association_. (PMID 37080261)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37080261) 4. Khan, M. A. et al. (2020). Systematic Review and Meta-analysis on Colorectal Cancer Findings on Colonic Evaluation After CT-Confirmed Acute Diverticulitis. _Diseases of the colon and rectum_. (PMID 32271220)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32271220) 5. He, X. et al. (2022). Risk of Colorectal Cancer in Serrated Polyposis Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. _Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association_. (PMID 34089849)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089849) 6. Lin, Y. et al. (2024). Frequency of colorectal surveillance colonoscopies for adenomatous polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis. _Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology_. (PMID 37967829)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37967829) 7. Patel, C. et al. (2019). Colorectal cancer screening for patients with a family history of colorectal cancer or adenomas. _Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien_. (PMID 31722908)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31722908) 8. Iacucci, M. et al. (2019). Systematic review with network meta-analysis: endoscopic techniques for dysplasia surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. _Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics_. (PMID 31502284)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31502284) 9. Shah, S. C. et al. (2021). Prognostic Factors for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. _Gastroenterology_. (PMID 33385426)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33385426) 10. Lee, D. Y. et al. (2022). An updated counseling framework for moderate-penetrance colorectal cancer susceptibility genes. _Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics_. (PMID 36222830)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36222830) 11. Facciorusso, A. et al. (2020). High-definition colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 31954133)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31954133) 12. Butterworth, J. R. et al. (2019). Quantitative risk of positive family history in developing colorectal cancer: A meta-analysis. _World journal of gastroenterology_. (PMID 31435179)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31435179) 13. Tabatabaei, S. M. et al. (2025). Family History of Colorectal Cancer and the Risk of Colorectal Neoplasia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. _The American journal of gastroenterology_. (PMID 39513348)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39513348) 14. Douma, K. F. L. et al. (2019). Effects of Family History on Relative and Absolute Risks for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. _Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association_. (PMID 31525516)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31525516) 15. Khodadost, M. et al. (2023). Family history of cancer as a potential risk factor for colorectal cancer in EMRO countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. _Scientific reports_. (PMID 37838786)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37838786) 16. Tian, H. et al. (2024). Application of linaclotide in bowel preparation for colonoscopy in patients with constipation: A prospective randomized controlled study. _Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology_. (PMID 39252470)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39252470) 17. Paspatis, G. A. et al. (2025). Propofol for sedation during colonoscopy. _The Cochrane database of systematic reviews_. (PMID 41147535)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41147535) 18. Tian, X. et al. (2020). Low-residue versus clear liquid diet before colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized, controlled trials. _Medicine_. (PMID 33285772)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33285772) 19. Weng, W. Z. et al. (2019). Moderate versus deep sedation in adults undergoing colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. _Current medical research and opinion_. (PMID 30479163)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30479163) 20. Guo, H. M. et al. (2021). Mobile health technologies supporting colonoscopy preparation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. _PloS one_. (PMID 33735320)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33735320) 21. Weng, W. Z. et al. (2020). Propofol versus midazolam with or without short-acting opioids for sedation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of safety, satisfaction, and efficiency outcomes. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 31926966)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31926966) 22. Park, J. et al. (2021). Comparative Effectiveness of Enhanced Patient Instructions for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy: Network Meta-analysis of 23 Randomized Controlled Trials. _Journal of medical Internet research_. (PMID 34694227)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34694227) 23. Fisher, D. A. et al. (2019). ASGE review of adverse events in colonoscopy. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 31563271)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31563271) 24. Hui, A. J. et al. (2019). Effectiveness and safety of cold versus hot snare polypectomy: A meta-analysis. _Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology_. (PMID 30176072)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30176072) 25. Kim, T. J. et al. (2025). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist use and the risk of residual gastric contents and aspiration in patients undergoing GI endoscopy: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 39694296)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39694296) 26. Jin, H. Y. et al. (2021). Underwater endoscopic mucosal resection for colorectal lesions: a meta-analysis. _Surgical endoscopy_. (PMID 32577813)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32577813) 27. Gong, W. et al. (2021). Impact of Prepackaged Low-Residue Diet on Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy: A Meta-analysis. _Gastroenterology nursing : the official journal of the Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates_. (PMID 33795626)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33795626) 28. Facciorusso, A. et al. (2020). Endocuff-assisted versus Cap-assisted Colonoscopy in Increasing Adenoma Detection Rate. A Meta-analysis. _Journal of gastrointestinal and liver diseases : JGLD_. (PMID 32830810)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32830810) 29. Spadaccini, M. et al. (2022). Prophylactic clipping to prevent delayed colonic post-polypectomy bleeding: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. _Surgical endoscopy_. (PMID 33751224)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33751224) 30. Mohan, B. P. et al. (2022). Endoscopic Full-Thickness Resection for Colorectal Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. _The Journal of surgical research_. (PMID 36054955)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36054955) 31. Facciorusso, A. et al. (2025). Cold- versus hot-snare endoscopic mucosal resection of colorectal polyps: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 39725332)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39725332) 32. Kandel, P. et al. (2025). Cold snare polypectomy versus hot endoscopic mucosal resection for large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. _Endoscopy_. (PMID 40101793)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40101793) 33. Kandel, P. et al. (2023). Cold Versus Hot Snare Polypectomy for Colorectal Polyps: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. _Journal of clinical gastroenterology_. (PMID 36787428)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36787428) 34. Yamasaki, Y. et al. (2021). Prophylactic clipping after endoscopic mucosal resection of large nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: A meta-analysis. _Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology_. (PMID 33638894)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33638894) 35. Kandel, P. et al. (2024). Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for Sessile Serrated Colorectal Polyps ≥10 mm: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. _Journal of clinical gastroenterology_. (PMID 38019045)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38019045) 36. Jørgensen, J. T. et al. (2023). The risk of bleeding and perforation from sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analyses. _PloS one_. (PMID 37906565)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37906565) 37. Patel, S. G. et al. (2020). Training interventions to improve adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. _Surgical endoscopy_. (PMID 31595401)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31595401) 38. Singh, A. K. et al. (2022). Incidence of colorectal cancer at different screening intervals after index colonoscopy and post-polypectomy: a meta-analysis of 811,181 participants. _Expert review of gastroenterology & hepatology_. (PMID 36408602)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36408602) 39. Özin, Y. et al. (2019). The importance of colonoscopy in the treatment of colorectal polyps and colorectal cancer screening. _Annali italiani di chirurgia_. (PMID 30946027)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30946027) 40. Facciorusso, A. et al. (2023). Endocuff-assisted versus standard colonoscopy for improving adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. _Techniques in coloproctology_. (PMID 35915293)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35915293) 41. Wang, P. et al. (2020). Enhanced Patient Education for Colonic Polyp and Adenoma Detection: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. _JMIR mHealth and uHealth_. (PMID 32347798)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32347798) 42. Al-Bawardy, B. et al. (2025). Network Meta-Analysis: Comparison of Endoscopic Dysplasia Detection Technologies in Inflammatory Bowel Disease. _Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics_. (PMID 39825829)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39825829) 43. Goyal, A. et al. (2022). Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Assist Devices on Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-analysis. _Journal of clinical gastroenterology_. (PMID 35324485)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35324485) 44. Feuerstein, J. D. et al. (2020). Meta-analysis of Virtual-based Chromoendoscopy Compared With Dye-spraying Chromoendoscopy Standard and High-definition White Light Endoscopy in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease at Increased Risk of Colon Cancer. _Inflammatory bowel diseases_. (PMID 32034916)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32034916) 45. Hassan, C. et al. (2020). The impact of deep convolutional neural network-based artificial intelligence on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review with meta-analysis. _Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology_. (PMID 32267558)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32267558) 46. Facciorusso, A. et al. (2021). Impact of EndoRings on colon adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. _Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology_. (PMID 33140884)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33140884) 47. Tutticci, N. et al. (2019). Cold snare endoscopic resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps larger than 10 mm: a systematic review and pooled-analysis. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 30639542)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30639542) 48. McLeod, E. J. et al. (2023). Effectiveness and safety of cold snare polypectomy and cold endoscopic mucosal resection for nonpedunculated colorectal polyps of 10-19 mm: a multicenter observational cohort study. _Endoscopy_. (PMID 36750222)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36750222) 49. Probst, A. et al. (2024). Cold Versus Hot Snare Endoscopic Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Randomized Controlled German CHRONICLE Trial. _Gastroenterology_. (PMID 38795735)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38795735) 50. Hourigan, S. et al. (2024). Cold versus hot snare endoscopic mucosal resection for large (≥15 mm) flat non-pedunculated colorectal polyps: a randomised controlled trial. _Gut_. (PMID 38964854)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38964854) 51. Madan, A. et al. (2025). Effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on endoscopy outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. _Gastrointestinal endoscopy_. (PMID 39401599)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39401599) 52. Kamal, F. et al. (2025). Safety and Efficacy of Cold Compared With Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. _The American journal of gastroenterology_. (PMID 40029072)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40029072) 53. Shah, M. D. et al. (2025). Impact of GLP-1 receptor agonists on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. _Surgical endoscopy_. (PMID 40634731)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40634731) 54. Sturm, A. et al. (2020). Ulcerative Colitis-Diagnostic and Therapeutic Algorithms. _Deutsches Arzteblatt international_. (PMID 33148393)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33148393) 55. Al-Bawardy, B. et al. (2025). Effects of Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists on Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Meta-Analysis. _Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association_. (PMID 39142543)(https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39142543)