ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2017
Quality of colonoscopy in an emerging country: A prospective, multicentre study in Russia.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Current Situation and Screening in North and Central Asian Countries.Cureus · 2023Review
- UEG Week 2019 Poster Presentations.United European gastroenterology journal · 2019Article
- Colonoscopy findings in patients with haematochezia in Benin (South-South Nigeria): A 9-year prospective study.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors at 18 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of colonoscopy has been related to a higher risk of interval cancer, and this issue has been addressed extensively in developed countries. The aim of our study was to explore the main quality indicators of colonoscopy in a large emerging country.
methodsConsecutive patients referred for colonoscopy in 14 centres were prospectively included between July and October 2014. Before colonoscopy, several clinical and demographic variables were collected. Main quality indicators (i.e. caecal intubation rate, (advanced) adenoma detection rate, rate of adequate cleansing and sedation) were collected. Data were analysed at
resultsA total of 8829 (males: 35%; mean age: 57 + 14 years) patients were included, with 11 centres enrolling at least 100 patients. Screening (including non-alarm symptoms) accounted for 59% (5188/8829) of the indications. Sedation and split preparation were used in 26% (2294/8829) and 25% (2187/8829) of the patients. Caecal intubation was achieved in 7616 patients (86%), and it was ≥85% in 8/11 (73%) centres. Adenoma detection rate was 18% (1550/8829), and it was higher than 20% in five (45%) centres, whilst it was lower than 10% in four (33%) centres. At multivariate analysis, age (OR: 1.020, 95% CI: 1.015-1.024), male sex (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3), alarm symptoms (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.7-2), split preparation (OR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.2-1.6), caecal intubation rate (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.3-1.9) and withdrawal time measurement (OR: 1.2, 95% CI: 1.6-2.1) were predictors of a higher adenoma detection rate, while adequate preparation (OR: 3.4: 95% CI: 2.9-3.9) and sedation (OR: 1.3; 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) were the strongest predictors of caecal intubation rate.
conclusionsAccording to our study, there is a substantial intercentre variability in the main quality indicators. Overall, the caecal intubation rate appears to be acceptable in most centres, whilst the overall level of adenoma detection appears low, with less than half of the centres being higher than 20%. Educational and quality assurance programs, including higher rates of sedation and split regimen of preparation, may be necessary to increase the key quality indicators.
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.