ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2018
Adenoma Detection Rate in Asymptomatic Patients with Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Prevalence and Clinical Features of Sessile Serrated Polyps: A Systematic Review.Gastroenterology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- Proximal retroflexion versus second forward view of the right colon during screening colonoscopy: A multicentre randomized controlled trial.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Trial
- Fecal Immunochemical Testing for Colorectal Cancer Prevention in Two Public Hospitals.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2025Article
- Effect of a distal attachment cuff on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: Randomized controlled trial in the Spanish population.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Areas of improvement for colorectal cancer screening: Results of a screening initiative for 10,000 health care employees in Austria.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Sessile serrated polyp detection rates after fecal immunochemical test or multitarget stool DNA test: Systematic review and meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2024Review
- Neoplasia Diagnosis After Multi-target Stool DNA Is Enhanced Among Lowest Baseline Detectors.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2023Article
- Hemorrhoids as a risk factor for colorectal adenomas on colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review of the Current Situation and Screening in North and Central Asian Countries.Cureus · 2023Review
- Colonoscopy Findings in FIT+ and mt-sDNA+ Patients versus in Colonoscopy-only Patients: New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry Data.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022Article
- The use of the faecal immunochemical test during the COVID-19 pandemic to triage urgent colorectal cancer referrals.Colorectal disease : the official journal of the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland · 2022Observational
- Impact of screening and follow-up colonoscopy adenoma sensitivity on colorectal cancer screening outcomes in the CRC-AIM microsimulation model.Cancer medicine · 2021Article
- Stool-Based Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Performance Benchmarks Lead to High Expected Efficacy.Current gastroenterology reports · 2020Review
- Colonoscopy Quality and Adherence to Postpolypectomy Surveillance Guidelines in an Underinsured Clinic System.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Observational
- Now, More than Ever Before, Colonoscopy Is a Therapeutic Procedure.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a powerful measure of screening colonoscopy quality. Patients who undergo colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) have increased prevalence of colorectal neoplasia, but it is not known whether separate quality benchmarks are required. The aim of this study was to compare the conventional ADR to the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of positive FIT, in asymptomatic average-risk patients.
methodsPatients ≥ 50 years old who underwent colonoscopy for the evaluation of a positive FIT between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2014, at a tertiary Veterans Affairs Medical Center were identified. FIT performed for any indication other than average-risk screening was excluded. The comparison group included average-risk patients ≥ 50 years old undergoing screening colonoscopy during the same time frame. The two groups were compared for ADR, advanced neoplasm [adenoma ≥ 10 mm, tubulovillous, high-grade dysplasia, CRC, sessile serrated polyp (SSP) ≥ 10 mm], CRC, and SSP detection after propensity score adjustment using a logistic regression model adjusted for endoscopist.
resultsThere were 207 patients in the FIT group and 601 in the screening colonoscopy comparison group. After propensity score adjustment, ADR (72.9 vs. 50.0%, p = 0.003), number of adenomas per colonoscopy (3.3 ± 3.6 vs. 1.4 ± 2.3, p = 0.033), and advanced neoplasm detection rate (32.4 vs. 11.0%, p < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the FIT group. There were no significant differences in the number of CRC and the SSP detection rate.
conclusionsIn this cohort of average-risk Veterans, the ADR of colonoscopies performed for the evaluation of a positive FIT was higher than the ADR of screening colonoscopies. Patients with a positive FIT also had significantly more adenomas per colonoscopy and advanced neoplasms. These findings suggest that the quality of colonoscopies performed for a positive FIT is insufficiently assessed by the conventional ADR and requires additional quality metrics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29468377What 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.