ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2012
Colometer: a real-time quality feedback system for screening colonoscopy.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effectiveness of walking exercise on the bowel preparation before colonoscopy: a single blind randomized clinical trial study.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: Enhancing quality indicators for optimal patient outcomes.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Clinical significance of computer-aided quality assessment systems in colonoscopy: a comprehensive review.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: A review of current state of practice and research.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Use of Artificial Intelligence to Improve the Quality Control of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
- Automated visibility map of the internal colon surface from colonoscopy video.International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery · 2016Article
- Interval Colorectal Cancer After Colonoscopy: Exploring Explanations and Solutions.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Review
- A Preliminary Study of Clinical Abbreviation Disambiguation in Real Time.Applied clinical informatics · 2015Article
- Article
- Quality colonoscopy: a matter of time, technique or technology?World journal of gastroenterology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.