ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Individual feedback and monitoring of endoscopist performance improves the adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a prospective case-control study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Personalized education approach based on cognitive psychology for endoscopic diagnosis: A multicenter randomized trial.PloS one · 2025Trial
- Pre-administration of super-low volume polyethylene glycol is as effective as senna laxative as bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a randomized controlled phase 2 trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2022Trial
- An artificial intelligence system for qualified mucosal observation time during colonoscopic withdrawal.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Eye movement patterns associated with colorectal adenoma detection: Post hoc analysis of randomized controlled trial.Endoscopy international open · 2025Article
- Endoscopist's Satisfaction with the Insertion Phase of Colonoscopy Is a Potential Quality Indicator for Colorectal Polyp Detection: A Propensity Score Matching Study.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Dietary restriction after cold snare polypectomy of colorectal polyp for prevention of delayed bleeding.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Article
- Big Data in Gastroenterology Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Factors Associated with Withdrawal Time in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of the European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Regular feedback to individual endoscopists is associated with improved adenoma detection rate and other key performance indicators for colonoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Quality management system for screening esophagogastroduodenoscopy improves detection ofEndoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Assessment of quality benchmarks in adenoma detection in Mexico.Endoscopy international open · 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
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background and purposePrevious reports have suggested that a longer withdrawal time (WT) during colonoscopy led to an improved adenoma detection rate (ADR); however, there are few controlled studies that substantiated monitoring WT as an educational method. We aimed to validate a feedback and monitoring system to improve the ADR in screening colonoscopy in a prospective case-control setting.
methodsAfter collecting data in the pre-feedback period (3.5 months), the individual performance and the average ADR and WT values of the facility were provided to 6 endoscopists in the intervention group, while 3 endoscopists were isolated as the control group during the feedback period (2 weeks). The intervention group consisted of two subgroups, the Fast and Slow WT groups, according to the results from the pre-feedback period. The endoscopists in the intervention group were instructed to be aware of their own WT in each examination during the post-feedback period (4 months). The performances of all endoscopists in the post-feedback period were analyzed and compared with those in the pre-feedback period.
resultsAmong the initial analyses, the correlation analysis and multivariate analysis revealed that WT was an independent predictor for the ADR (P = 0.0101). After providing individual performance feedback and instruction regarding real-time WT monitoring, the WT was significantly prolonged in the Fast WT group (P = 0.0346) but did not change in the Slow WT and control groups. In addition, the ADR of the Fast WT group significantly improved after the intervention (P = 0.024), whereas the ADR of the Slow WT and control groups did not change.
conclusionProviding individual feedback on ADR and WT and monitoring WT helped improve the endoscopists' ADRs.
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.