Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27255334›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2016

Can Technology Improve the Quality of Colonoscopy?

Selvi Thirumurthi, William A Ross, Gottumukkala S Raju

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 40% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Selvi ThirumurthiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. sthirumurthi@mdanderson.org.
William A RossDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Gottumukkala S RajuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In order for screening colonoscopy to be an effective tool in reducing colon cancer incidence, exams must be performed in a high-quality manner. Quality metrics have been presented by gastroenterology societies and now include higher adenoma detection rate targets than in the past. In many cases, the quality of colonoscopy can often be improved with simple low-cost interventions such as improved procedure technique, implementing split-dose bowel prep, and monitoring individuals' performances. Emerging technology has expanded our field of view and image quality during colonoscopy. We will critically review several technological advances in the context of quality metrics and discuss if technology can really improve the quality of colonoscopy.

Indexed as

ColonoscopesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansQuality ImprovementTechnology Assessment, BiomedicalAdenoma detection rateEndoscope accessoriesEndoscope designQuality metricsScreening colonoscopyTechniqueTechnology

Identifiers

PMID27255334
OpenAlexW2472115017

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.