ArticleEndoscopy international open2016
The Polyp Manager: a new tool for optimal polyp documentation during colonoscopy. A pilot study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsConventional reporting of polyps is often incomplete. We tested the Polyp Manager (PM), a new software application permitting the endoscopist to document polyps in real time during colonoscopy. We studied completeness of polyp descriptions, user-friendliness and the potential time benefit. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn two Dutch hospitals colonoscopies were performed with PM (as a touchscreen endoscopist-operated device or nurse-operated desktop application). Completeness of polyp descriptions was compared to a historical group with conventional reporting (CRH). Prospectively, we compared user-friendliness (VAS-scores) and time benefit of the endoscopist-operated PM to conventional reporting (CR) in one hospital. Duration of colonoscopy and time needed to report polyps and provide a pathology request were measured. Provided that using PM does not prolong colonoscopy, the sum of the latter two was considered as a potential time-benefit if the PM were fully integrated into a digital reporting system.
resultsA total of 144 regular colonoscopies were included in the study. Both groups were comparable with regard to patient characteristics, duration of colonoscopy and number of polyps. Using the PM did reduce incomplete documentation of the following items in CRH-reports: location (96 % vs 82 %, P = 0.01), size (95 % vs 89 %, P = 0.03), aspect (71 % vs 36 %, P < 0.001) and completeness of removal (61 % vs 37 %, P < 0.001). In the prospective study 23 PM-colonoscopies where compared to 28 CR-colonoscopies. VAS-scores were significantly higher in the endoscopist-operated PM group. Time to report was 01:27 ± 01:43 minutes (median + interquartile range) in the entire group (PM as CR), reflecting potential time benefit per colonoscopy.
conclusionsThe PM is a user-friendly tool that seems to improve completeness of polyp reporting. Once integrated with digital reporting systems, it is probably time saving as well.
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.