Observational studyDigestive diseases and sciences2019
Difference in Physician- and Patient-Dependent Factors Contributing to Adenoma Detection Rate and Serrated Polyp Detection Rate.
Observational study in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Automatic Quality Control System and Adenoma Detection Rates During Routine Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- Educating Outpatients for Bowel Preparation Before Colonoscopy Using Conventional Methods vs Virtual Reality Videos Plus Conventional Methods: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2021Trial
- To what extent can bowel preparation quality be considered "adequate"?: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Evaluation of serrated lesion detection using different indicators: a single-centre, community-based, retrospective cohort study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: a survey of outpatients and inpatients.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Optimizing detection and resection of colorectal polyps.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Excellent Bowel Preparation Quality Is Not Superior to Good Bowel Preparation Quality for Improving Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rate.Clinical Medicine Insights. Oncology · 2024Article
- Withdrawal time in colonoscopy, past, present, and future, a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023Review
- Impact of looping on premalignant polyp detection during colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Quality of colonoscopy performed by medical or surgical specialists and trainees in five Australian hospitals.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications.United European gastroenterology journal · 2022Article
- The analysis of multilevel factors affecting adenoma detection rates for colonoscopies: a large-scale retrospective study.BMC gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Patient, Physician, and Procedure Characteristics Are Independently Predictive of Polyp Detection Rates in Clinical Practice.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Article
- Impact of the National Endoscopy Database (NED) on colonoscopy withdrawal time: a tertiary centre experience.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Patient and Physician Factors Associated with Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rates.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2020Article
- Adenoma Detection Rate in Average-Risk Population: An Observational Consecutive Retrospective Study.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterObservational
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is correlated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer and is considered as a quality benchmark for colonoscopy. Serrated polyp detection rate (SPDR) might be a more stringent indicator of quality in polyp detection.
aimsTo evaluate in a 2-year monocentric observational study patient-dependent and endoscopist-dependent factors influencing ADR and SPDR in daily practice.
methodsWe determined ADR and SPDR. We collected patient-dependent factors and endoscopist-dependent factors. Links between these data and detection rates were assessed by uni- and multivariate analysis.
resultsA total of 11682 colonoscopies were performed (female: 54.3%; male: 45.7%; median age 58) by 30 endoscopists (female: 9; male: 21). ADR and SPDR were 29.2% and 8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, ADR was associated with patient-dependent factors: age (OR 1.044, CI 95% 1.040-1.048), male gender (OR 1.7, CI 95% 1.56-1.85), personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.53, CI 95% 1.3-1.9), and positive fecal immunochemical test (OR 2.47, CI 95% 2.0-3.1). In multivariate analysis, SPDR was associated with withdrawal time (OR 1.25, CI 95% 1.17-1.32), low volume activity (OR 1.3, CI 95% 1.1-1.52), and personal history of polyp/cancer (OR 1.61, CI 95% 1.15-2.25).
conclusionIn this large series of routine colonoscopies, we found that ADR was mainly driven by patient-dependent conditions, i.e., age, male gender, colonoscopy indication for positive FIT, and a personal history of polyp or cancer. In contrast, SPDR was mainly related to endoscopist-dependent factor, i.e., withdrawal time and low volume activity.
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.