ReviewClinical endoscopy2022
Quality indicators in colonoscopy: the chasm between ideal and reality.
Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of expert-curated video training data on computer-aided detection of sessile serrated lesions: a retrospective study in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- External Validation of an AI-Based Colonoscopy Quality Assessment Tool in Japanese Clinical Practice: A Pilot Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Updated bowel preparation regimens for colonoscopy: benefits and drawbacks.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Interobserver variability in colonoscopy quality assessment: a retrospective standardized multicenter video-based study.Archive of clinical cases · 2026Article
- Iatrogenic colon perforation: endoscopic management or surgery.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in colonoscopy: Enhancing quality indicators for optimal patient outcomes.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Review
- Innovative schemes of colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: Optimizing traditional standards to improve colonoscopy quality.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Review
- Effectiveness of a novel artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy system for adenoma detection: a prospective, propensity score-matched, non-randomized controlled study in Korea.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Efficacy and safety of lubiprostone combined with polyethylene glycol electrolyte powder for bowel preparation in patients classified by risk level: a randomised trial.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Novel regimen for colonoscopy bowel preparation with oral lactulose: a prospective comparative study.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- Detecting colorectal lesions with image-enhanced endoscopy: an updated review from clinical trials.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Continuous measurement of quality indicators (QIs) should be a routine part of colonoscopy, as a wide variation still exists in the performance and quality levels of colonoscopy in Korea. Among the many QIs of colonoscopy, the adenoma detection rate, average withdrawal time, bowel preparation adequacy, and cecal intubation rate should be monitored in daily clinical practice to improve the quality of the procedure. The adenoma detection rate is the best indicator of the quality of colonoscopy; however, it has many limitations for universal use in daily practice. With the development of natural language processing, the adenoma detection rate is expected to become more effective and useful. It is important that colonoscopists do not strictly and mechanically maintain an average withdrawal time of 6 minutes but instead perform careful colonoscopy to maximally expose the colonic mucosa with a withdrawal time of at least 6 minutes. To achieve adequate bowel preparation, documentation of bowel preparation with the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) should be a routine part of colonoscopy. When colonoscopists routinely followed the bowel preparation protocols, ≥85% of outpatient screening colonoscopies had a BBPS score of ≥6. In addition, the cecal intubation rate should be ≥95% of all screening colonoscopies. The first step in improving colonoscopy quality in Korea is to apply these key performance measurements in clinical practice.
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.