Trial reportPloS one2017
Development and validation of a prediction model for adenoma detection during screening and surveillance colonoscopy with comparison to actual adenoma detection rates.
Trial report in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02325635 (A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of an Endoscopic Quality Improvement Project-2), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial of an Endoscopic Quality Improvement Project-2 (EQUIP-2) to Improve Adenoma Detection in Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Effect of Endocuff use on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Pooled it
- Integrated Genetic Risk Stratification Identifies High Adenoma Detection Rates at Colonoscopy in a Real-World US Health System.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies widely between physicians, possibly due to patient population differences, hampering direct ADR comparison. We developed and validated a prediction model for adenoma detection in an effort to determine if physicians' ADRs should be adjusted for patient-related factors. MATERIALS AND
methodsScreening and surveillance colonoscopy data from the cross-sectional multicenter cluster-randomized Endoscopic Quality Improvement Program-3 (EQUIP-3) study (NCT02325635) was used. The dataset was split into two cohorts based on center. A prediction model for detection of ≥1 adenoma was developed using multivariable logistic regression and subsequently internally (bootstrap resampling) and geographically validated. We compared predicted to observed ADRs.
resultsThe derivation (5 centers, 35 physicians, overall-ADR: 36%) and validation (4 centers, 31 physicians, overall-ADR: 40%) cohort included respectively 9934 and 10034 patients (both cohorts: 48% male, median age 60 years). Independent predictors for detection of ≥1 adenoma were: age (optimism-corrected odds ratio (OR): 1.02; 95%-confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.03), male sex (OR: 1.73; 95%-CI: 1.60-1.88), body mass index (OR: 1.02; 95%-CI: 1.01-1.03), American Society of Anesthesiology physical status class (OR class II vs. I: 1.29; 95%-CI: 1.17-1.43, OR class ≥III vs. I: 1.57; 95%-CI: 1.32-1.86), surveillance versus screening (OR: 1.39; 95%-CI: 1.27-1.53), and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity (OR: 1.13; 95%-CI: 1.00-1.27). The model's discriminative ability was modest (C-statistic in the derivation: 0.63 and validation cohort: 0.60). The observed ADR was considerably lower than predicted for 12/66 (18.2%) physicians and 2/9 (22.2%) centers, and considerably higher than predicted for 18/66 (27.3%) physicians and 4/9 (44.4%) centers.
conclusionThe substantial variation in ADRs could only partially be explained by patient-related factors. These data suggest that ADR variation could likely also be due to other factors, e.g. physician or technical issues.
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.