Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31144121›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020

Timed screening colonoscopy: a randomized trial of two colonoscopic withdrawal techniques.

Eduardo Coghlan, Luis Laferrere, Elisa Zenon, Juan Manuel Marini, German Rainero, Alberto San Roman, Maria Lourdes Posadas Martinez, Angel Nadales

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  7. Improving polyp detection at colonoscopy: Non-technological techniques.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023
    Review
  8. Adenoma detection rateTranslational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Article
  9. Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Eduardo CoghlanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina. educoghlan@hotmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-5522-2503
Luis LaferrereDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Elisa ZenonDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Juan Manuel MariniDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
German RaineroDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Alberto San RomanDepartment of Pathology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Maria Lourdes Posadas MartinezDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Angel NadalesDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Austral, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Hospital Universitario Austral · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

background and goalsMissed adenomas are likely to be located in the proximal colon and failure to detect these lesions might explain the occurrence of a certain percentage of interval carcinomas. Though studies have demonstrated increased detection of significant neoplastic lesions in colonoscopic examinations where the withdrawal time is 6 min or more, there are no recommendations on how much time to spend in each colonic segment. The aim of the trial was to find ways to reduce the number of lesions missed in the proximal segments of the colon assessing the difference in adenoma detection rate (ADR) between two colonoscopic withdrawal timed techniques. STUDY: This was a randomized trial in a university hospital. Population was composed of patients referred for screening colonoscopy. The Main Outcome measurements was ADRs for patients subjected to a timed colonoscopy with specific withdrawal times, with special interest in the proximal colon, and implying a minimum of 2-min withdrawal delay in the cecum and right colon, a 1-min delay time in the transverse colon, and a minimum additional 3-min delay time in the left colon, as compared to a standard timed colonoscopy with free withdrawal delay time of at least 6 min.

resultsA total of 1160 patients were included. Eleven were initially excluded due to incomplete colonoscopies. Of the remaining 1149 patients, 573 were randomized to the group with fixed withdrawal times (Group A) and 576 to conventional withdrawal (Group B). Median age was 57 years (SD 6), a total of 634 (55.2%) were male patients and the mean withdrawal time was 7:05 min (SD 1 min). Seven hundred and eighty-one adenomas/serrated lesions were found in 470 patients (1.66 per patient), with 28 advanced lesions and 3 adenocarcinomas. Global ADR was 41% with no significant statistical differences between the two groups (42.1% vs 39.8%, p 0.43), respectively. A multivariate analysis showed clear relation between the finding of adenomas and higher BBPS ratings (Adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] 0.92, p 0.05), age (aOR 1.03, p 0.01), male sex (aOR 1.51, p 0.001), and time of withdrawal (aOR 1.17, p 0.001), while no association was observed with either withdrawal technique (aOR 0.89, IC 95% 0.70-1.03, p 0.32). There was no statistical significant difference between the two groups concerning the finding of proximal lesions (cOR 0.93, CI 95% 0.71-1.20, p 0.56) (aOR 0.89, CI 95% 0.69-1.17, p 0.41) or serrated polyps (cOR 0.81, CI 95% 0.51-1.27, p 0.35) (aOR 0.81, IC 95% 0.51-1.28, p 0.36).

conclusionsFixed withdrawal times did not prove to lead to an increase in the number of detected adenomas. Nevertheless, our study supports previous reports stating that longer withdrawal times are indeed associated with better proximal and distal adenoma detection.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdenomaColonColonic PolypsColonoscopesColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMissed DiagnosisMultivariate AnalysisOdds RatioPolypsAdenoma detection rateColorectal cancer screeningQuality in colonoscopySerrated polyps

Identifiers

PMID31144121
OpenAlexW2947423643

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.