ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2021
Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Recurrent Cervical Esophageal Fistula and Retroesophageal Abscess Following Surgical Management of Zenker's Diverticulum.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Change in Colonoscopy Quality Performance Indicators in Symptomatic Patients Following Introduction of the Bowel Screening Programme in Te Tai Tokerau.ANZ journal of surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of the impact of power business intelligence on adenoma detection rate: a prospective observational trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Development and Validation of an Automated, Real-time Adenoma Detection Rate and Colonoscopy Quality Metrics Calculator.Techniques and innovations in gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Impact of a scalable training program on the quality of colonoscopy performance and risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2023Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.
methodsA literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.
resultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I
conclusionsMonitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.
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.