ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2019
Improvement in colonoscopy quality metrics in clinical practice from 2000 to 2014.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Enhanced Patient Education for Colonic Polyp and Adenoma Detection: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Pooled it
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of a Fecal Immunochemical Test in Detecting Colorectal Cancer and Advanced Precancerous Colorectal Neoplasia in Patients with Iron Deficiency: A Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2023Article
- Article
- Split-dose 1 L polyethylene glycol (PEG) with ascorbate is non-inferior to split-dose PEG with sodium picosulfate and magnesium citrate with similar tolerability: a randomized study.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsThere has been a tremendous increase in research focused on quality metrics in colonoscopy since 2000. However, whether national performance in colonoscopy quality outcomes has changed significantly since then is not as well known.
methodsWe examined colonoscopy data collected prospectively through the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which included 84 GI practice sites from 2000 to 2014 for patients undergoing colonoscopy for multiple indications. Colonoscopy outcomes by indication were compared across three 5-year periods (2000-2004, 2005-2009, 2010-2014) using the following metrics: bowel preparation quality (percentage good/excellent), finding a polyp, finding 2 or more polyps, and finding a polyp >9 mm. Multivariate logistic regression was used to generate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each time period while controlling for age, gender, and race/ethnicity.
resultsA total of 1,541,837 adults were included in the study across all indication groups. The average-risk screening group (390,741 adults) demonstrated statistically significant improvement across all 4 quality metrics when comparing the baseline period with the final time period. Bowel preparation quality improved across all indications when comparing the baseline period with the final time period. Finding a polyp, finding 2 or more polyps, and finding a polyp >9 mm improved in the average-risk screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indication groups when comparing the baseline period with the final time period. The increased-risk screening and inflammatory bowel disease indication groups did not see improvements beyond bowel preparation quality when comparing the baseline with the final time period.
conclusionColonoscopy outcomes as measured by bowel preparation quality, finding a polyp, finding 2 or more polyps, and finding a polyp >9 mm improved significantly over the 15-year period between 2000 and 2014, with the largest and most consistent impact in the average-risk screening indication group.
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.