Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29974376›Full record

Observational studyDigestive diseases and sciences2018

Screening Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time Threshold for Adequate Proximal Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.

Viral D Patel, William K Thompson, Brittany R Lapin, Jay L Goldstein, Eugene F Yen

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study 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 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Optimizing detection and resection of colorectal polyps.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023
    Review
  9. Withdrawal time in colonoscopy, past, present, and future, a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. 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

5 authors.

Viral D PatelDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
William K ThompsonCenter for Clinical Research Informatics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Brittany R LapinCenter for Clinical Research Informatics, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Jay L GoldsteinDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA.
Eugene F YenDivision of Gastroenterology, University of Chicago, Pritzker School of Medicine, NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, IL, USA. eyen@northshore.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionFor adequate adenoma detection rate (ADR), guidelines recommend a mean withdrawal time (MWT) of ≥ 6 min. ADR has been shown to correlate strongly with proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSP-DR), which is another suggested quality measure for screening colonoscopy. However, the impact of directly measured withdrawal time on PSP-DR has not been rigorously studied. We examined the relationship between MWT to ADR and PSP-DR, with the aim of identifying a functional threshold withdrawal time associated with both increased ADR and PSP-DR.

methodsThis was a retrospective study of endoscopy and pathology data from average-risk screening colonoscopy examinations performed at a large system with six endoscopy laboratories. A natural language processing tool was used to determine polyp location and histology. ADR and PSP-DR were calculated for each endoscopist. MWT was calculated from colonoscopy examinations in which no polyps were resected.

resultsIn total, 31,558 colonoscopy examinations were performed, of which 10,196 were average-risk screening colonoscopy examinations with cecal intubation and adequate prep by 24 gastroenterologists. When assessing the statistical significance of increasing MWT by minute, the first significant time mark for PSP-DR was at 11 min at a rate of 14.2% (p = 0.01). There was a significant difference comparing aggregated MWT < 11 min compared to ≥ 11 min looking at the rates of adenomas [OR 1.65 (1.09-2.51)] and proximal serrated polyps [OR 1.81 (1.06-3.08)]. While ADR linearly correlated well with MWT (R = 0.76, p < 0.001), the linear relationship with PSP-DR was less robust (R = 0.42, p = 0.043).

conclusionIn this large cohort of average-risk screening colonoscopy, a MWT of 11 min resulted in a statistically significant increase in both ADR and PSP-DR. Our data suggest that a longer withdrawal time may be required to meet both quality metrics.

Indexed as

AdenomaAgedColonic NeoplasmsColonic PolypsColonoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTime FactorsColonoscopyColorectal cancer screeningEndoscopic detectionPolypectomySessile serrated polypWithdrawal time

Identifiers

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.