ArticleArchives of medical science : AMS2019
How to improve the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening? Clinical factors and technological advancements.
Article in Archives of medical science : AMS, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of artificial intelligence in adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials-Artificial intelligence and adenoma detection.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond the biopsy: the new era of non-invasive staging and biomarkers in colorectal cancer.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2026Review
- Fluorescence-guided tumor visualization of colorectal cancer using tumor-initiating probe yellow in preclinical models.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Is There a Difference in Adenoma Detection Rates According to Indication? An Experience in a Panamanian Colorectal Cancer Screening Program.Gastroenterology research · 2023Article
- Colorectal Cancer-The Worst Enemy Is the One We Do Not Know.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Real-Time Polyp Detection, Localization and Segmentation in Colonoscopy Using Deep Learning.IEEE access : practical innovations, open solutions · 2021Article
- Comprehensive RNA Sequencing in Adenoma-Cancer Transition Identified Predictive Biomarkers and Therapeutic Targets of Human CRC.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2020Article
- Hepatitis B virus screening in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in clinical practice in Poland - a report of the Polish Lymphoma Research Group.Archives of medical science : AMS · 2020Article
- Mitogenome germline mutations and colorectal cancer risk in Polish population.Archives of medical science : AMS · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionColonoscopy has been widely regarded as the gold standard in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Within recent years different endoscopic imaging techniques have been introduced to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the single most important quality indicator for colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of CRC screening expressed by ADR in two different eras of endoscopic technology advancement. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe conducted a dual-center study that enrolled 24 055 patients, who underwent colonoscopy as part of a national screening program. Patients were sorted into two groups according to the advancement of endoscopic equipment used for colonoscopic examination: group I - 10 405 patients examined between 2004 and 2008 (standard electronic endoscopes); group II - 13 650 patients examined between 2009 and 2014 (modern endoscopes). The ADR in two different eras and the impact of endoscopic novelties were determined.
resultsThe ADR in group I was 29.14%, in group II 31.73% (
conclusionsOur study shows that technological innovation, novel endoscopy devices and diagnostic techniques improve the quality in CRC screening by increasing the ADR. However, we need to determine which of the technologies are supreme to achieve excellence in colorectal cancer screening.
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.