Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29255755›Full record

ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2017

Quality in Colonoscopy: Beyond the Adenoma Detection Rate Fever.

Filipe Taveira, Miguel Areia, Luís Elvas, Susana Alves, Daniel Brito, Sandra Saraiva, Ana Teresa Cadime

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Monitoring photographic proof of cecal intubation: A closed-loop audit of best practice colonoscopy.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2021
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Quality in Endoscopy: It's Time for an Audit!GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Filipe TaveiraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.
Miguel AreiaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.
Luís ElvasDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.
Susana AlvesDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.
Daniel BritoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.
Sandra SaraivaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.
Ana Teresa CadimeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portuguese Oncology Institute, Coimbra, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopy quality is a hot topic in gastroenterological communities, with several actual guidelines focusing on this aspect. Although the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important indicator, several other metrics are described and need reporting. Electronic medical reports are essential for the audit of quality indicators; nevertheless, they have proved not to be faultless.

aimThe aim of this study was to analyse and audit quality indicators (apart from ADR) using only our internal electronic endoscopy records as a starting point for improvement.

methodsAn analysis of electronically recorded information of 8,851 total colonoscopies from a single tertiary centre from 2010 to 2015 was performed.

resultsThe mean patient age was 63.4 ± 8.5 years; 45.5% of them were female, and in 14.6% sedation was used. Photographic documentation was done in 98.4% with 10.7 photographs on average, and 37.4% reports had <8 pictures per exam. Bowel preparation was rated as adequate in 67%, fair in 27% and inadequate in 4.9% of cases. The adjusted caecal intubation rate (CIR) was 92%, while negative predictors were inadequate preparation (OR 119, 95% CI 84-170), no sedation (OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.81-3.15), female gender (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.38-1.88) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.34-1.82). In 28% of patients, a snare polypectomy was performed, correlating with adequate preparation (OR 5.75, 95% CI 3.90-8.48), male gender (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.64-2.01) and age ≥65 years (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.13-1.37;

Indexed as

ColonoscopyElectronic health recordsGastroenterology standardsQuality improvementQuality of health care

Identifiers

PMID29255755
PMCPMC5729943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.