Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25494362›Full record

Observational studyJournal of clinical gastroenterology2015

Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Danielle M Tholey, Corbett E Shelton, Gloria Francis, Archana Anantharaman, Robert A Frankel, Paurush Shah, Amy Coan, Sarah E Hegarty, Benjamin E Leiby, David M Kastenberg

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of clinical gastroenterology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2017
    Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Danielle M TholeyDepartments of *Medicine ‡Gastroenterology, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital †Division of Biostatistics, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA.
Corbett E Shelton
Gloria Francis
Archana Anantharaman
Robert A Frankel
Paurush Shah
Amy Coan
Sarah E Hegarty
Benjamin E Leiby
David M Kastenberg
Thomas Jefferson University · USThomas Jefferson University Hospital · US

Funding

X-Ray Crystallography and Macromolecular CharacterizationP30CA056036 · NCI · THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY · PI DANIEL P SILVER · 1995 to 2026
$94.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA056036
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

goalTo determine whether Excellent bowel cleansing is superior to Good for the detection of adenomas.

backgroundHigh quality colonoscopy requires Adequate bowel preparation. However, it is unknown whether adenoma detection differs between subcategories of Adequate cleansing. STUDY: We utilized a retrospective, cross-sectional study design to obtain data about patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single university center between August 31, 2011 and September 1, 2012. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), the percentage of patients with ≥1 adenoma. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, adenoma distribution (proximal vs. distal), and detection of advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and cancer.

resultsThe electronic medical record of 5113 consecutive colonoscopies with Good or Excellent preparation was queried for preparation quality, colonoscopy indication, demographics, medical history, and history of adenoma and colon cancer. Exclusion criteria were age below 18 years, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis. Adenoma detection was not superior with Excellent cleansing as compared with Good for ADR [respectively, 26% vs. 29%, odds ratio 0.97 (0.85, 1.11), P=0.618] or adenomas per colonoscopy [respectively, 0.437 vs. 0.499, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07), P=0.705]. Excellent cleansing demonstrated superior detection of SSPs [IRR 1.66 (1.14, 2.40), P=0.008] and advanced adenomas [IRR 1.37 (1.09, 1.72), P=0.007] but not colon cancer [odds ratio 0.286 (0.083, 0.985), P=0.0474].

conclusionsADR is not significantly different between the Adequate subcategories of Excellent and Good. However, Excellent cleansing is associated with superior detection of advanced adenomas and SSPs. If confirmed, achieving an Excellent preparation may improve colonoscopy performance in the proximal colon where SSPs primarily occur.

Indexed as

AdenomaAgedCatharticsColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioRetrospective StudiesCathartics

Identifiers

PMID25494362
PMCPMC7038788
OpenAlexW2317356397

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.