ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2015
The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2015. 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, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Techniques in coloproctology · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Trend of the polyp and adenoma detection rate by sex and age in asymptomatic average-risk and high-risk individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, 2012-2019.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023Review
- Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Smoking and Other Risk Factors in Individuals With Synchronous Conventional High-Risk Adenomas and Clinically Significant Serrated Polyps.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2018Article
- ADR evaluation of screening colonoscopies during 2016 - 2017 in a private health clinic in Peru.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
- Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2018Article
- Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2018Article
- Defining Benchmarks for Adenoma Detection Rate and Adenomas Per Colonoscopy in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy Due to a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Optimizing Colonoscopy Quality: From Bowel Preparation to Surveillance.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2016Article
- Adenoma Detection Rates for Screening Colonoscopies in Smokers and Obese Adults: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Journal of clinical gastroenterologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated and widely used measure of colonoscopy quality. There is uncertainty in the published literature as to which colonoscopy examinations should be excluded when measuring a physician's ADR.
objectiveTo examine the impact of varying the colonoscopy exclusion criteria on physician ADR.
designWe applied different exclusion criteria used in 30 previous studies to a dataset of endoscopy and pathology reports. Under each exclusion criterion, we calculated physician ADR.
settingA private practice colonoscopy center affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine. PATIENTS: Data on 20,040 colonoscopy examinations performed by 11 gastroenterologists from July 2009 to May 2013 and associated pathology notes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADRs across all colonoscopy examinations, each physician's ADR, and ADR ranking.
resultsThere were 28 different exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Each study used a different combination of these exclusion criteria. The proportion of all colonoscopy examinations in the dataset excluded under these combinations of exclusion criteria ranged from 0% to 92.2%. The mean ADR across all colonoscopy examinations was 39.1%. The change in mean ADR after applying the 28 exclusion criteria ranged from -5.5 to +3.0 percentage points. However, the exclusion criteria affected each physician's ADR relatively equally, and therefore physicians' rankings via the ADR were stable. LIMITATIONS: ADR assessment was limited to a single private endoscopy center.
conclusionThere is wide variation in the exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Although these exclusion criteria can affect overall ADRs, the relative rankings of physicians by ADR were stable. A consensus definition of which exclusion criteria are applied when measuring ADR is needed.
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.