ReviewCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2016
A Review on the Quality of Colonoscopy Reporting.
Review in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Written Recommendation to Repeat Colonoscopy within 1 Year after Inadequate Bowel Preparation: A Simple and Highly Effective Intervention.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Leveraging Machine Learning and Robotic Process Automation to Identify and Convert Unstructured Colonoscopy Results Into Actionable Data: Proof-of-Concept Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Enhancing and Not Replacing Clinical Expertise: Improving Named-Entity Recognition in Colonoscopy Reports Through Mixed Real-Synthetic Training Sources.Journal of personalized medicine · 2025Article
- Using a Mobile Health App (ColonClean) to Enhance the Effectiveness of Bowel Preparation: Development and Usability Study.JMIR human factors · 2025Article
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Gaps and improvement opportunities in post-colonoscopy communication.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Article
- Development of a definition and rules for causal attribution of post-colonoscopy bleeding.PloS one · 2020Article
- Bowel preparation quality scales for colonoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2018Review
- Quality in Colonoscopy: Beyond the Adenoma Detection Rate Fever.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy reports are important communication tools for providers and patients with potential to serve as information sources for research, quality, performance, and resource management. Despite decades of work, studies continue to indicate that colonoscopy reports are often incomplete. Although electronic medical records (EMRs) and databases can address this problem, costs, workflow, and interoperability (difficulty exchanging information between systems) continue to limit adoption and implementation of endoscopy EMRs in Canada and elsewhere. Quality and reporting guidelines alone have proven to be insufficient. In this review we have derived and applied five key themes to challenges in the current state of colonoscopy reporting and propose strategies to address them.
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.