Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27151122›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2016

Editorial: On the Quality of Quality Metrics: Rethinking What Defines a Good Colonoscopy.

Jason A Dominitz, Brennan Spiegel

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Adenoma miss rate of polypectomy-referring hospitals is high in Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2020
    Article
  3. The Countdown to a Paradigm Shift in Diagnosing Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Jason A DominitzVA Puget Sound Health Care System, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Brennan SpiegelDepartment of Health Services Research, Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education (CS-CORE), Cedars-Sinai Health System, Los Angeles, California, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The colonoscopy quality assurance movement has focused on a variety of process metrics, including the adenoma detection rate (ADR). However, the ADR only ascertains whether or not at least one adenoma is identified. Supplemental measures that quantify all neoplasia have been proposed. In this issue of the American Journal of Gastroenterology, Aniwan and colleagues performed tandem screening colonoscopies to determine the adenoma miss rate among high-ADR endoscopists. This permitted validation of supplemental colonoscopy quality metrics. This study highlights potential limitations of ADR and the need for further refinement of colonoscopy quality metrics, although logistic challenges abound.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAdenomaColonoscopyHumansMass Screening

Identifiers

PMID27151122

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.