ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2015
Quality in Colonoscopy.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the observer role vs. active participant role in interprofessional simulation-based education for affective skills: a randomized-controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Review
- Synchronous pathologic findings in patients with colorectal cancer and preoperative incomplete colonoscopy.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Analysis of population-based colorectal cancer screening in Guangzhou, 2011-2015.Cancer medicine · 2019Article
- Adenoma Detection Rate in Average-Risk Population: An Observational Consecutive Retrospective Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterObservational
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality metrics in colonoscopy are a growing area of focus given the development of and need for associated reporting and potential financial penalties. Three areas specifically have been identified as important by a multi-society task force, and the evidence behind each has been presented here. These metrics are adenoma detection rate, appropriate screening interval, and cecal intubation rate. Additional factors of interest include bowel preparation cleanliness and endoscope withdrawal time. Multifaceted interventions have been implemented to improve outcomes in colonoscopy with mixed success. Given that there are some quality metrics that have been shown to impact colorectal cancer outcomes, additional research should focus on disseminating these methods in a consistent and effective way across a myriad of practice models and patient populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26292664What 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.