Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33178263›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2020

Colonoscopy Quality and Adherence to Postpolypectomy Surveillance Guidelines in an Underinsured Clinic System.

Jaison John, Abdul Al-Douri, Bretta Candelaria, Saurin Gandhi, Paul Guzik, Brent Herndon, Christopher Kim, Nicole Kluz, Jennifer Thompson, Jessica Trevino and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The unmet needs for identifying the ideal bowel preparation.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2021
    Review
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

12 authors.

Jaison JohnDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7574-0933
Abdul Al-DouriDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Bretta CandelariaDepartment of Population Health, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Saurin GandhiDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Paul GuzikDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Brent HerndonDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Christopher KimDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0948-3059
Nicole KluzDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Jennifer ThompsonDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Jessica TrevinoDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.
Victoria ValenciaDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5250-5359
Michael PignoneDepartment of Internal Medicine, The University of Texas at Austin Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6657-7342

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDelivery of high-quality colonoscopy and adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines is essential to a high-quality screening program, especially in safety net systems with limited resources. We sought to assess colonoscopy quality and ensure appropriate surveillance in a network of safety net practices.

methodsWe identified age-eligible patients ages 50-75 within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) clinic system with evidence of colonoscopy in preceding 10 years. We performed chart reviews to assess key aspects of colonoscopy quality: bowel preparation quality, evidence of cecal intubation, cecal withdrawal time, and the adenoma detection rate. We then utilized established guidelines to assess and revise surveillance colonoscopy intervals, determine whether appropriate surveillance had taken place, and schedule overdue patients as appropriate.

resultsOf 26,394 age-eligible patients, a total of 3,970 patients had evidence of prior colonoscopy and 1,709 charts were selected and reviewed. Mean age was 57, 54% identified as women and 51% identified as Hispanic. Of 1709 colonoscopies reviewed, 77% had data on bowel preparation, and of those, 85% had adequate preparation quality. Cecal intubation was documented in 89% of procedures. Adequate cecal withdrawal time was documented in 59% of those with documented cecal intubation. Overall adenoma detection rate was 42%. Initial surveillance interval was clearly stated in 72% (

conclusionsOverall, the quality of screening colonoscopy was high, but reporting was incomplete. We found fair adherence to evidence-based surveillance guidelines, with significant opportunities to extend surveillance intervals and improve adherence to best practices.

Identifiers

PMID33178263
PMCPMC7648690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.