Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35039559›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

A colonoscopy quality improvement intervention in an endoscopy unit.

Rémi Palmier, Thibault Degand, Serge Aho, Côme Lepage, Olivier Facy, Christophe Michiels, Sylvain Manfredi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Rémi PalmierDépartement d'hépato Gastroentérologie et Endoscopie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Thibault DegandDépartement d'hépato Gastroentérologie et Endoscopie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Serge AhoDépartement d'hygiène Hospitalière, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Côme LepageDépartement d'hépato Gastroentérologie et Endoscopie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Olivier FacyDépartement de Chirurgie Digestive et Oncologique, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Christophe MichielsDépartement d'hépato Gastroentérologie et Endoscopie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France.
Sylvain ManfrediDépartement d'hépato Gastroentérologie et Endoscopie Digestive, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Dijon, Dijon, France. sylvain.manfredi@chu-dijon.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many studies identified colonoscopy quality indicators in order to improve performance and safety. We conducted a colonoscopy improvement study. Our study was designed according to a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle: first recording of our quality indicators and identification of shortcomings, second identification of improvement targets and implementation of new procedures, third second recording of quality indicators, fourth validation of procedures and identification of new goals. Quality indicators derived from European and French guidelines were recorded before and after our improvement actions. We were mainly interested in the quality indicators of the colonic preparation, the description of the diagnosed lesions and on the examination reports. The data of 134 patients prospectively included in January-February 2017 were compared to 133 patients included in May-June 2019, after implementation of improvement procedures, in the digestive endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Dijon, France. Our intervention, and in particular the implementation of new standardized forms, improved preparation quality: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores increased significantly from 7.8 to 8.2. Cecal intubation rate increased by 6%, and more adenomas were diagnosed and removed (+3.3%). Adenoma detection rate increased significantly from 26 to 42%. The completion of withdrawal time measure improved from 6.7 to 100%. Our study led to the rapid implementation of corrective actions and improved quality in our unit and in our personal practice. This quality improvement strategy could be easily implemented in every digestive endoscopy unit.

Indexed as

Quality ImprovementAdenomaAdultAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleFranceHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMiddle AgedQuality Indicators, Health Care

Identifiers

PMID35039559
PMCPMC8763865

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.