ReviewGastroenterology clinics of North America2013
Colonoscopy quality: metrics and implementation.
Review in Gastroenterology clinics of North America, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- MicroRNA panels as diagnostic biomarkers for colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Blood-based microRNAs as biomarkers for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.British journal of cancer · 2017Pooled it
- GI Genius increases small and right-sided adenoma and sessile serrated lesion detection rate when used with EndoCuff in a real-world setting: a retrospective United States study.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Consensus quality indicators for monitoring multiple sclerosis.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2024Review
- Evaluating colonoscopy screening intervals in patients with Lynch syndrome from a large Canadian registry.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Post-polypectomy follow-up recommendations by practicing academic gastroenterologists-does number of years in practice matter?International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Article
- Article
- Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Article
- Impact of feedback and monitoring on colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Optimizing Colonoscopy Quality: From Bowel Preparation to Surveillance.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2016Article
- A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2016Review
- Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015Article
- Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2015Article
- Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Colonoscopy is an excellent area for quality improvement because it is high volume, has significant associated risk and expense, and there is evidence that variability in its performance affects outcomes. The best end point for validation of quality metrics in colonoscopy is colorectal cancer incidence and mortality, but a more readily accessible metric is the adenoma detection rate. Fourteen quality metrics were proposed in 2006, and these are described in this article. Implementation of quality improvement initiatives involves rapid assessments and changes on an iterative basis, and can be done at the individual, group, or facility level.
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.