Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31595401›Full record

SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2020

Training interventions to improve adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stephanie Lim, Sydney Hammond, Jason Park, David Hochman, Mê-Linh Lê, Rasheda Rabbani, Ahmed Abou-Setta, Ryan Zarychanski

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Too Good to Be True? Evaluation of Colonoscopy Sensitivity Assumptions Used in Policy Models.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Stephanie LimDepartment of Surgery, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Sydney HammondDepartment of Surgery, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Jason ParkDepartment of Surgery, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada. jpark@sbgh.mb.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8437-2375
David HochmanDepartment of Surgery, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Mê-Linh LêNeil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Rasheda RabbaniDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Ahmed Abou-SettaDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Ryan ZarychanskiDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundColonoscopies are effective means of detecting and removing precancerous adenomatous polyps. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a marker of colonoscopy quality and an independent predictor of colorectal cancer incidence. Focused training interventions may improve an endoscopist's ADR, but the supporting research is limited. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified, critically appraised, and meta-analyzed data from randomized trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect of training interventions on ADRs.

methodsOvid Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Eric, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for RCTs investigating the effect of an educational intervention on ADRs. Two reviewers independently screened, identified, and extracted trial-level data. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Risk of Bias tool. Our primary outcome was the ADR. Secondary outcomes were advanced ADR, adenocarcinoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and withdrawal times. Safety outcomes were post-polypectomy bleeding rate and colonoscopy-related perforation rate.

resultsFrom 2837 screened citations, we identified 3 trials (119 endoscopists) meeting our inclusion criteria. Training interventions were associated with a trend toward increased ADRs (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00-1.34; I

conclusionsA focused training intervention was associated with a strong trend toward increased ADRs among certified endoscopists. While the described training interventions definitely show promise, further efforts around continuing professional developments activities are needed to more consistently improve ADRS among certified endoscopists.

Indexed as

AdenomaClinical Trials as TopicColonic NeoplasmsColonoscopyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOdds RatioPolypsPublication BiasRiskTreatment OutcomeAdenoma detection rateColon cancerColonoscopyEndoscopyRectal cancerTraining

Identifiers

PMID31595401

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.