Trial reportPloS one2012
Quality indicators for colonoscopy procedures: a prospective multicentre method for endoscopy units.
Trial report in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phosphate tablets or polyethylene glycol for preparation to colonoscopy? A multicentre non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2017Trial
- Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Trial
- Gastric emptying evaluation by ultrasound prior colonoscopy: an easy tool following bowel preparation.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Trial
- Should Bariatric Surgery Candidates Be Screened for Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Quality indicators in colonoscopy: observational study in a supplementary health system.Acta cirurgica brasileira · 2023Observational
- Assessment of quality benchmarks in adenoma detection in Mexico.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Checklist feasibility and impact in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.Endoscopy international open · 2021Review
- Novel Toilet Paper-Based Point-Of-Care Test for the Rapid Detection of Fecal Occult Blood: Instrument Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Colitis: Diagnosis and Management.Targeted oncology · 2017Article
- Quality of colonoscopy in an emerging country: A prospective, multicentre study in Russia.United European gastroenterology journal · 2017Article
- Age Is the Only Predictor of Poor Bowel Preparation in the Hospitalized Patient.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Article
- Adenoma detection rate in 41,010 patients from Southwest China.Oncology letters · 2015Article
- Adenoma detection rates in an opportunistic screening colonoscopy program in Iran, a country with rising colorectal cancer incidence.BMC gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Virtual gastrointestinal colonoscopy in combination with large bowel endoscopy: clinical application.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsHealthcare professionals are required to conduct quality control of endoscopy procedures, and yet there is no standardised method for assessing quality. The topic of the present study was to validate the applicability of the procedure in daily practice, giving physicians the ability to define areas for continuous quality improvement.
methodsIn ten endoscopy units in France, 200 patients per centre undergoing colonoscopy were enrolled in the study. An evaluation was carried out based on a prospectively developed checklist of 10 quality-control indicators including five dependent upon and five independent of the colonoscopy procedure.
resultsOf the 2000 procedures, 30% were done at general hospitals, 20% at university hospitals, and 50% in private practices. The colonoscopies were carried out for a valid indication for 95.9% (range 92.5-100). Colon preparation was insufficient in 3.7% (range 1-10.5). Colonoscopies were successful in 95.3% (range 81-99). Adenoma detection rate was 0.31 (range 0.17-0.45) in successful colonoscopies.
conclusionThis tool for evaluating the quality of colonoscopy procedures in healthcare units is based on standard endoscopy and patient criteria. It is an easy and feasible procedure giving the ability to detect suboptimal practice and differences between endoscopy-units. It will enable individual units to assess the quality of their colonoscopy techniques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.