Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29340817›Full record

ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018

Adenoma detection rate metrics in colorectal cancer surveillance colonoscopy.

Jamie M Tjaden, Jessica A Hause, Daniel Berger, Samantha K Duveneck, Shriram M Jakate, Bruce A Orkin, Elizabeth L Hubbard, Joshua E Melson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jamie M TjadenDepartment of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, North Shore University Health System, Evanston, IL, USA.
Jessica A HauseDepartment of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Daniel BergerDepartment of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Samantha K DuveneckDepartment of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Shriram M JakateDepartment of Pathology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Bruce A OrkinDepartment of Surgery, Division of Colorectal Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Elizabeth L HubbardDepartment of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Joshua E MelsonDepartment of Medicine, Division of Digestive Diseases, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. joshua_melson@rush.edu.
Rush University Medical Center · USNorthShore University HealthSystem · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA target goal for screening adenoma detection rate (S-ADR) of ≥ 25% has been set to define high-quality colonoscopy performance. However, there is no current accepted target goal for ADR in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance. This makes quality assessment challenging when physicians perform cancer surveillance colonoscopy but minimal screening procedures.

methodsIn this cohort study, consecutive colonoscopies performed at either Rush University Medical Center or Rush Oak Park Hospital by a gastroenterologist or colorectal surgeon in average risk screening population and CRC surveillance population were reviewed retrospectively from 2006 to 2012 and prospectively from 2013 to 2016. ADR in first surveillance colonoscopy following surgical resection of CRC (CRC-ADR) was reported in high-quality detectors (HQD) or low-quality detectors (LQD) based on achievement of 25% ADR in consecutive screening colonoscopy in average risk patients. Pearson's correlation was used to describe the association between individual S-ADR and CRC-ADR for colonoscopists.

resultsThere was a very strong positive correlation (r = 0.88, p = 0.002) between ADR in average risk screening and first time CRC surveillance. For HQD as defined by S-ADR ≥ 25% (n = 10 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 37.7% (78/207, SD 8%) which was very similar to their respective S-ADR of 33.4% (816/2440, p = 0.22). For LQD (n = 5 colonoscopists), the CRC-ADR was 20.2% (40/198) which was similar to their respective S-ADR of 20.1% (119/591, p = 0.99). The CRC-ADR was significantly higher for HQD than for LQD (37.7 vs. 20.2%, p < 0.0001).

conclusionsThe major finding of this study is a defined CRC-ADR for HQD based on the ability to achieve S-ADR ≥ 25%. S-ADR strongly correlates with CRC-ADR. CRC-ADR is quite similar to the colonoscopists' respective S-ADR for both HQD and LQD. For colonoscopists who perform limited screening colonoscopies but do perform CRC surveillance colonoscopies, ADR metrics similar to S-ADR to assess quality in colonoscopy could be considered.

Indexed as

Population SurveillanceAdenomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsUnited StatesAdenomasColonoscopyColorectal cancer

Identifiers

PMID29340817
OpenAlexW2783478920

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.