Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25267326›Full record

Trial reportThe American journal of gastroenterology2015

Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.

Vivian Ussui, Susan Coe, Cynthia Rizk, Julia E Crook, Nancy N Diehl, Michael B Wallace

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04636619 (Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effect of External Evaluation and Training on the Incomplete Resection Rate in Cold Snare Polypectomies in Colonic Lesions <10 Mm), which is not on this map. Cited by 34 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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.

NCT04636619 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Trial Evaluating the Effect of External Evaluation and Training on the Incomplete Resection Rate in Cold Snare Polypectomies in Colonic Lesions <10 Mm (POLIPEVA Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital del Rio HortegaRan2021 to 2024Enrolled1,920ConditionsColonic Polyp, Colorectal Adenoma, Colorectal CancerArmsColonic polypectomy, Online training course
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Improving polyp detection at colonoscopy: Non-technological techniques.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vivian UssuiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Susan Coe1] Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA [2] Atlanta Gastroenterology Associates, Snellville, Georgia, USA.
Cynthia Rizk1] Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA [2] Penn State Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA.
Julia E CrookDivision of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Nancy N DiehlDivision of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Michael B WallaceDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, Florida, USA.
Mayo Clinic in Florida · USAtlanta Gastroenterology Associates · USJacksonville College · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe recently completed a randomized controlled trial of an endoscopic quality improvement program (EQUIP) that demonstrated an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR) through simple educational interventions. The aim of this study (phase III) is to examine whether the improvement in ADR in the trained endoscopists remained stable with further follow-up.

methodsWe prospectively followed up 15 staff endoscopists who had previously been randomized to a quality improvement intervention. In the current study, we examined an additional 1,200 colonoscopy procedures conducted over a 5-month time period following the original study, referred to as phase III. During this time, all physicians received quarterly ADR and other quality metric feedback, and the previous control group was offered the educational intervention voluntarily. ADRs and adenoma per patient (APP) rates were estimated in the endoscopists who were and were not randomized to EQUIP training and compared with those obtained in phases I and II of the original study. The study was conducted in a tertiary care Academic Medical Center. The study sample comprised 1200 patients undergoing routine colonoscopy. The main outcome measurement was adenoma detection rate.

resultsThe previously observed increase in ADR in the trained group from 36% in phase I to 47% in phase II was maintained into phase III (46%). The ADR of the untrained group remained unchanged from phase I (36%) to phase II (35%); it was increased only marginally in phase III to 39%, which was still lower than the 46% ADR in the trained group. The trained group had an increase in APP, from 0.72 in Phase I to 0.87 in Phase II and 0.98 in Phase III. For the previously untrained group, there was no change in APP from phase I (0.68) to phase II (0.68), but there was possibly a small increase (to 0.74) in Phase III.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that improvements in ADR obtained through the endoscopic quality-training program can persist for at least 5 months after completion of the program. It further suggests that a focus on ADR does not lead to a "one and done" phenomenon. The limitations of this study were as follows: single-center setting, and lack of sessile polyp information/standardization.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdenomaAdultColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEducation, Medical, ContinuingFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality Indicators, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID25267326
OpenAlexW2038960035

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.