Observational studyDigestive diseases and sciences2018
Screening Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time Threshold for Adequate Proximal Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.
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.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Evaluation of serrated lesion detection using different indicators: a single-centre, community-based, retrospective cohort study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Optimizing detection and resection of colorectal polyps.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Traditional and Novel Colonoscopy Quality Metrics: What's Important in 2025.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
- Variation in Proximal Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates During Non-screening Colonoscopies.Cureus · 2025Article
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Leveraging Natural Language Processing to Extract Features of Colorectal Polyps From Pathology Reports for Epidemiologic Study.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2023Article
- Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023Review
- Withdrawal time in colonoscopy, past, present, and future, a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Impact of the National Endoscopy Database (NED) on colonoscopy withdrawal time: a tertiary centre experience.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Impact of Moderate versus Deep Sedation and Trainee Participation on Adenoma Detection Rate-Analysis of a Veteran Population.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Guidelines for accreditation of endoscopy units: quality measures from the Korean Society of Coloproctology.Annals of surgical treatment and research · 2021Article
- Ability of known colorectal cancer susceptibility SNPs to predict colorectal cancer risk: A cohort study within the UK Biobank.PloS one · 2021Article
- Evolving Role and Future Directions of Natural Language Processing in Gastroenterology.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Review
- Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2019Observational
- Ileal intubation is not associated with higher detection rate of right-sided conventional adenomas and serrated polyps compared to cecal intubation after adjustment for overall adenoma detection rate.BMC 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
29974376What 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.