ArticleIntestinal research2019
The current capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea.
Article in Intestinal research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Synergistic Sedation with Midazolam and Propofol Versus Midazolam and Pethidine in Colonoscopies: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study.Chonnam medical journal · 2024Article
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Factors Affecting Adherence to National Colorectal Cancer Screening: A 12-Year Longitudinal Study Using Multi-Institutional Pooled Data in Korea.Journal of Korean medical science · 2024Article
- Trends in colorectal cancer incidence according to an increase in the number of colonoscopy cases in Korea.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- Overview of the National Cancer Screening Program for Colorectal Cancer in Korea over 14 Years (2004-2017).Cancer research and treatment · 2023Article
- The Influence of Face Shields on the Quality of Colonoscopy in the Era of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Gut and liver · 2022Article
- Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality.Clinical endoscopy · 2022Review
- A Study on Differences between Professional Endoscopists and Gastroenterologists in Endoscopic Detection and Standard Pathological Biopsy of Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2022Article
- Colonoscopy quality in community hospitals and nonhospital facilities in Korea.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2021Article
- Intentions to undergo primary screening with colonoscopy under the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea.PloS one · 2021Article
- Real-World National Colonoscopy Volume in Korea: A Nationwide Population-Based Study over 12 Years.Gut and liver · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsLittle is known for the capacity and quality of colonoscopy, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea. This study aimed to investigate the present and potential colonoscopic capacity, colonoscopic quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines in Korea.
methodsWe surveyed representative endoscopists of 72 endoscopy units from June to August 2015, using a 36-item questionnaire regarding colonoscopic capacity, quality, and adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines of each hospitals.
resultsAmong the 62 respondents who answered the questionnaire, 51 respondents were analyzed after exclusion of 11 incomplete answers. Only 1 of 3 of endoscopy units can afford to perform additional colonoscopies in addition to current practice, and the potential maximum number of colonoscopies per week was only 42. The quality of colonoscopy was variable as reporting of quality indicators of colonoscopy were considerably variable (29.4%-94.1%) between endoscopy units. Furthermore, there are substantial gaps in the adherence to colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, as concordance rate for guideline recommendation was less than 50% in most scenarios.
conclusionsThe potential capacity and quality of colonoscopy in Korea was suboptimal. Considering suboptimal reporting of colonoscopic quality indicators and low adherence rate for colonoscopy surveillance guidelines, quality improvement of colonoscopy should be underlined in Korea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.