Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22969189›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2012

Colometer: a real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy.

Dobromir Filip, Xuexin Gao, Leticia Angulo-Rodríguez, Martin P Mintchev, Shane M Devlin, Alaa Rostom, Wayne Rosen, Christopher N Andrews

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Automated visibility map of the internal colon surface from colonoscopy video.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dobromir FilipDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada.
Xuexin Gao
Leticia Angulo-Rodríguez
Martin P Mintchev
Shane M Devlin
Alaa Rostom
Wayne Rosen
Christopher N Andrews

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo investigate the performance of a new software-based colonoscopy quality assessment system.

methodsThe software-based system employs a novel image processing algorithm which detects the levels of image clarity, withdrawal velocity, and level of the bowel preparation in a real-time fashion from live video signal. Threshold levels of image blurriness and the withdrawal velocity below which the visualization could be considered adequate have initially been determined arbitrarily by review of sample colonoscopy videos by two experienced endoscopists. Subsequently, an overall colonoscopy quality rating was computed based on the percentage of the withdrawal time with adequate visualization (scored 1-5; 1, when the percentage was 1%-20%; 2, when the percentage was 21%-40%, etc.). In order to test the proposed velocity and blurriness thresholds, screening colonoscopy withdrawal videos from a specialized ambulatory colon cancer screening center were collected, automatically processed and rated. Quality ratings on the withdrawal were compared to the insertion in the same patients. Then, 3 experienced endoscopists reviewed the collected videos in a blinded fashion and rated the overall quality of each withdrawal (scored 1-5; 1, poor; 3, average; 5, excellent) based on 3 major aspects: image quality, colon preparation, and withdrawal velocity. The automated quality ratings were compared to the averaged endoscopist quality ratings using Spearman correlation coefficient.

resultsFourteen screening colonoscopies were assessed. Adenomatous polyps were detected in 4/14 (29%) of the collected colonoscopy video samples. As a proof of concept, the Colometer software rated colonoscope withdrawal as having better visualization than the insertion in the 10 videos which did not have any polyps (average percent time with adequate visualization: 79% ± 5% for withdrawal and 50% ± 14% for insertion, P < 0.01). Withdrawal times during which no polyps were removed ranged from 4-12 min. The median quality rating from the automated system and the reviewers was 3.45 [interquartile range (IQR), 3.1-3.68] and 3.00 (IQR, 2.33-3.67) respectively for all colonoscopy video samples. The automated rating revealed a strong correlation with the reviewer's rating (ρ coefficient= 0.65, P = 0.01). There was good correlation of the automated overall quality rating and the mean endoscopist withdrawal speed rating (Spearman r coefficient= 0.59, P = 0.03). There was no correlation of automated overall quality rating with mean endoscopists image quality rating (Spearman r coefficient= 0.41, P = 0.15).

conclusionThe results from a novel automated real-time colonoscopy quality feedback system strongly agreed with the endoscopists' quality assessments. Further study is required to validate this approach.

Indexed as

Adenomatous PolypsAlgorithmsColonic NeoplasmsColonoscopyComputer SystemsDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedEarly Detection of CancerHumansPilot ProjectsQuality Assurance, Health CareReproducibility of ResultsSoftwareBowel preparationColon cancerColonoscopyQuality assuranceQuality improvementWithdrawal time

Identifiers

PMID22969189
PMCPMC3436041

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.