ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2019
Validation of an automated adenoma detection rate calculating system for quality improvement of colonoscopy.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Epidemiology and clinical characteristics of colorectal cancer and advanced adenoma: a single center experience in Jordan.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of an Automated, Real-time Adenoma Detection Rate and Colonoscopy Quality Metrics Calculator.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Performance of natural language processing in identifying adenomas from colonoscopy reports: a systematic review and meta-analysis.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2023Article
- Colorectal cancer screening in Semarang, Indonesia: A multicenter primary health care based study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Leveraging electronic medical record functionality to capture adenoma detection rate.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to validate an automated calculating system developed for determining the adenoma detection rate (ADR).
methodsTo calculate the automated ADR, the data linking processes were as follows: (1) matching the selected colonoscopy results with the pathological results, (2) matching the polyp number from colonoscopy with that from pathology and confirming the histopathological results of each colonic polyp, and (3) confirming the histopathological results, especially the adenoma status of each colonic polyp. To verify the accuracy of the automated ADR calculating system, we manually calculated the ADR for 3 months through medical record review. Accuracy was calculated by measuring the error rate for each value. The cause of error was analyzed by additional order and chart review.
resultsAfter excluding 318 cases, 2,543 patients (1,351 men and 1,192 women; median age, 57.9 years) who underwent colonoscopy were included in this study. When the automated calculating system was used, polyps were found in 1,336 cases (52.6%) and adenomas were found in 1,003 cases (39.4%). When the manual calculating system was used, polyps were found in 1,327 cases (52.2%) and adenomas were found in 1,003 cases (39.4%). The accuracies of the polyp detection rate and ADR according to the automated calculating system were 99.3% and 100%, respectively.
conclusionWe developed a system to automatically calculate the ADR by extracting hospital electronic medical record results and verified that it provided satisfactory results. It may help to improve colonoscopy quality.
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.