ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2015
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of screening colonoscopy according to the adenoma detection rate.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Quantifying the cost savings and health impacts of improving colonoscopy quality: an economic evaluation.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Post-polypectomy recurrence: Low detector or high-risk polyp?United European gastroenterology journal · 2018Article
- Impact of differences in adenoma and proximal serrated polyp detection rate on the long-term effectiveness of FIT-based colorectal cancer screening.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Distribution, size and shape of colorectal adenomas as determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate: Influence of age, sex and colonoscopy indication.United European gastroenterology journal · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe adenoma detection rate of the endoscopist has been related to the post-colonoscopy interval risk of colorectal cancer.
objectiveThe objective of this article is to estimate the impact of adenoma detection rate on the long-term colorectal cancer prevention rate.
methodsA Markov model was constructed to simulate the efficacy and cost of colonoscopy screening according to the adenoma detection rate of the endoscopist in 100,000 individuals. Post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancer risk and the relative risk of interval cancer among endoscopists with different adenoma detection rates were extracted from the literature. A 1.5 relative risk was assumed between endoscopists with low and average adenoma detection rates, and a relative risk of 11 between those with average and high adenoma detection rates. Both efficacy and costs were projected over a steady-state American population.
resultsScreening colonoscopy performed by endoscopists with low adenoma detection rates resulted in a 7% absolute reduction in the long-term colorectal cancer incidence prevention rate as compared to the same procedure performed by those with an average adenoma detection rate (70% vs. 77%). This difference increased to 21% when comparing endoscopists with an average with those with a high adenoma detection rate. When projected on the US population, this reduced efficacy resulted in an additional 1728 and 16,123 colorectal cancer cases and the loss of $117 million and $906 million per year in the two scenarios, respectively. These estimates were sensitive to the risk of post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancer.
conclusionsA substantial reduction in long-term colorectal cancer prevention rate may be expected when screening colonoscopy is performed by endoscopists with a suboptimal adenoma detection rate. A substantial saving may be expected when implementing policies to improve endoscopist adenoma detection rate.
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.