ReviewGut2016
Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators.
Review in Gut, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 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
47 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role ofMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Trial
- The Web-Based Randomized Controlled Intervention as the Enhancer of Cancer Prevention.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Preventing intraoperative hypotension in propofol-sedated gastroenteroscopy: a randomized trial of crystalloid preloading.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- The impact of artificial intelligence on the adenoma detection rate : Comparison between experienced, intermediate and trainee endoscopists' adenoma detection rate.Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Article
- Review
- Updates in the endoscopic management of colorectal polyps.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Psychometric Evaluation of the Patient Experience Colonoscopy Scale.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Patient- and endoscopist-related risk factors and etiological categorization of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Costs and benefits of a formal quality framework for colonoscopy: Economic evaluation.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: Modalities and adherence.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Exhaled volatile organic compounds in the detection of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.EXCLI journal · 2024Review
- The Detection of Colorectal Cancer through Machine Learning-Based Breath Sensor Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Clinical Course and Prognosis of Isolated Terminal Ileal Ulcers.Archives of Iranian medicine · 2023Article
- Development and validation of a risk prediction model for post-polypectomy colorectal cancer in the USA: a prospective cohort study.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Improved diagnosis of colorectal cancer using combined biomarkers including Fusobacterium nucleatum, fecal occult blood, transferrin, CEA, CA19-9, gender, and age.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Unlocking quality in endoscopic mucosal resection.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Review
- Quality in colonoscopy: time to ensure national standards are implemented?Frontline gastroenterology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.
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.