Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32903839›Full record

ArticleGastrointestinal tumors2020

Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate for Adenoma and Sessile Serrated Adenoma/Polyp Detection Rates.

Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao Pu, Gurfarmaan Singh, Khizar Rana, Masanao Nakamura, Takeshi Yamamura, Sudarshan Krishnamurthi, Amanda Ovenden, Suzanne Edwards, Andrew Ruszkiewicz, Yoshiki Hirooka and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastrointestinal tumors, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Leonardo Zorron Cheng Tao PuFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Gurfarmaan SinghFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Khizar RanaFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Masanao NakamuraDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
Takeshi YamamuraDepartment of Endoscopy, Nagoya University Hospital, Nagoya, Japan.
Sudarshan KrishnamurthiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Amanda OvendenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Suzanne EdwardsAdelaide Health Technology Assessment, School of Public Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Andrew RuszkiewiczDepartment of Pathology, Lyell McEwin Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Yoshiki HirookaDepartment of Liver, Biliary Tract and Pancreas Diseases, Fujita Health University, Toyoake, Japan.
Mitsuhiro FujishiroDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan.
Alastair D BurtFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
Rajvinder SinghFaculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Adelaide Medical School, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
The University of Adelaide · AULyell McEwin Hospital · AUNagoya University · JPFujita Health University · JPNagoya University Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionQuality measures for colonoscopy such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) have been proposed to be surveilled for ensuring minimum standards. However, its direct measurement is time consuming and often neglected. Extrapolating ADR and other quality measures from polyp detection rate (PDR) can be a pragmatic alternative.

objectiveTo determine quotients for estimating ADR and sessile serrated adenoma/polyp detection rate (SSA/P-DR) from PDR in an Australian cohort.

methodsConsecutive adult patient colonoscopies during a 1-year period were retrospectively assessed in a single Australian tertiary endoscopy center. Adenoma detection quotient (ADQ) and SSA/P detection quotient (SSA/P-DQ) were defined as the division of ADR and SSA/P-DR by PDR, respectively. The primary outcome was the number of procedures to achieve a stable cumulative ADQ and SSA/P-DQ. Secondary outcomes included evaluation of ADQ and SSA/P-DQ in different subsets.

resultsIn total, 2,657 colonoscopies were performed by 15 endoscopists in 2016. The ADR, SSA/P-DR, and PDR found were 32.2, 6.7, and 47.3%, respectively. The ADQ and SSA/P-DQ values found were 0.68 and 0.14, respectively. After approximately 500 procedures, both ADQ and SSA/P-DQ became stable. Interclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the prediction of ADR from ADQ was excellent for all endoscopists that performed >177 procedures in that year (ICC 0.84).

conclusionsADQ and SSA/P-DQ values were consistent when over 500 procedures were analyzed. ADQ had an excellent correlation with ADR when >177 procedures per endoscopist were evaluated.

Indexed as

Colonic neoplasmsColonic polypsColonoscopyColorectal cancerHealth metrics

Identifiers

PMID32903839
PMCPMC7445665
OpenAlexW3006579516

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.