ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2016
The Secondary Quality Indicator to Improve Prediction of Adenoma Miss Rate Apart from Adenoma Detection Rate.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 82 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy: A prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial of polyp detection.Cancer medicine · 2021Trial
- Reducing adenoma miss rate of colonoscopy assisted by artificial intelligence: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.Journal of gastroenterology · 2021Trial
- Y-Polyp: research on devices for detecting colorectal polyps with limited samples.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Colorectal adenoma recurrence: an analysis of risk factors and gut microbiota characteristics.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in FIT-Positive Colonoscopy: Balancing Detection Metrics and Clinical Impact.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
- Role of artificial intelligence in the detection and characterization of gastrointestinal premalignant and early malignant lesions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Risk Factors of Missed Adenoma Detected by Colonoscopic Polypectomy and Its Impact of the Endoscopic System.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of quality performance metrics in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: a single-center experience.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2025Article
- Review
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Artificial intelligence for colorectal neoplasia detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Measuring the observer (Hawthorne) effect on adenoma detection rates.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Improving polyp detection at colonoscopy: Non-technological techniques.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Risk Factors Related to Polyp Miss Rate of Short-Term Repeated Colonoscopy.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Adenoma detection rateTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Article
- Mucosal imaging in colon polyps: New advances and what the future may hold.World journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Effects of ai-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma miss rate/adenoma detection rate: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2022Article
- What Is the Optimal Surrogate Indicator for a Miss Rate of Adenoma in Colonoscopy?Gut and liver · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAdenoma detection rate (ADR) cannot distinguish between endoscopists who detect one adenoma and those who detect ≥2 adenomas. Hypothetically, adenoma miss rate (AMR) may be significant for endoscopists with high ADRs who examine the rest of colon with less care after detecting first polyp. Our objective was to evaluate other quality indicators plus ADR vs. ADR alone in prediction of AMR.
methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of asymptomatic participants aged 50-75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by four faculty endoscopists. Each round of colonoscopy was performed by two of the endoscopists in a randomized order. During each round of colonoscopy, all detected polyps were removed. The second endoscopist was blinded to the results of the first. The total number of adenomas per positive participant (APP), the total number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and ADR were calculated for prediction of AMR.
resultsIn all, 200 participants underwent back-to-back colonoscopies. There were no significant differences in ADRs of four endoscopists (44, 50, 54, and 46%). APPs were 1.91, 2.12, 2.19, and 2.43. APCs were 0.84, 1.06, 1.18, and 1.12. ADR-Plus were 0.40, 0.56, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively. AMRs differed significantly between the endoscopists (36, 27, 21, and 13%; P=0.01). There was no correlation between ADR and AMR (r=-0.25; P=0.75). Whereas APP exhibited a strong inverse correlation with AMRs (r=-0.99; P<0.01). APC and ADR-Plus appeared to be inversely correlated with AMR, however this was not statistically significant (r=-0.82; P=0.18 and r=-0.93; P=0.07, respectively).
conclusionsAmong high-ADR endoscopists, AMRs still varied. APP may be a promising secondary indicator for distinguishing between the one-and-done polyp endoscopist and the meticulous endoscopist. The evaluation of influence of new metrics on colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention requires a larger population-based study.
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.