ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. 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.
- Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?Medicine · 2020Trial
- Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer and the association with endoscopic findings in the Danish colorectal cancer screening programme.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Endoscopist's Satisfaction with the Insertion Phase of Colonoscopy Is a Potential Quality Indicator for Colorectal Polyp Detection: A Propensity Score Matching Study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Weekend and evening planned colonoscopy activity: a safe and effective way to meet demands.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Individual feedback and monitoring of endoscopist performance improves the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a prospective case-control study.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Afro-Caribbeans Have a Lower Prevalence of Advanced Colon Neoplasia than African-Americans.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rates.Gastrointestinal tumors · 2020Article
- Improved detection of adenomas and sessile serrated polyps is maintained with continuous audit of colonoscopy.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR.
methodsIn March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period.
results2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.33).
conclusionsMonthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.
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.