Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35670788›Full record

ArticleJAMA2022

Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer.

Joanne E Schottinger, Christopher D Jensen, Nirupa R Ghai, Jessica Chubak, Jeffrey K Lee, Aruna Kamineni, Ethan A Halm, Celette Sugg-Skinner, Natalia Udaltsova, Wei K Zhao and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
13.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Longitudinal Adherence With Stool-Based Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four United States Health Systems.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  13. Bowel Preparation in Quality Guidelines and Clinical Practice.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. [How do we ensure quality in endoscopy?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joanne E SchottingerKaiser Permanente Bernard J. Tyson School of Medicine, Pasadena, California.
Christopher D JensenDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Nirupa R GhaiDepartment of Quality and Systems of Care, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.
Jessica ChubakKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Jeffrey K LeeDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Aruna KamineniKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Ethan A HalmDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Celette Sugg-SkinnerSimmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Population & Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Natalia UdaltsovaDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Wei K ZhaoDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Rebecca A ZiebellKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle.
Richard ContrerasResearch and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena.
Eric J KimSimmons Comprehensive Cancer Center and Department of Population & Data Sciences, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Bruce H FiremanDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Charles P QuesenberryDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Douglas A CorleyDivision of Research, Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland.
Kaiser Permanente · USKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute · USThe University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center · US

Funding

Optimizing Colorectal Cancer Screening PREcision and Outcomes in CommunIty-baSEd Populations (PRECISE)UM1CA222035 · NCI · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI CHUBAK, JESSICA, CORLEY, DOUGLAS ALLEN · 2018 to 2023
$15.6M
NCI NIH HHS UM1 CA222035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Although colonoscopy is frequently performed in the United States, there is limited evidence to support threshold values for physician adenoma detection rate as a quality metric. Objective: To evaluate the association between physician adenoma detection rate values and risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer and related deaths. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study in 3 large integrated health care systems (Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, and Kaiser Permanente Washington) with 43 endoscopy centers, 383 eligible physicians, and 735 396 patients aged 50 to 75 years who received a colonoscopy that did not detect cancer (negative colonoscopy) between January 2011 and June 2017, with patient follow-up through December 2017. Exposures: The adenoma detection rate of each patient's physician based on screening examinations in the calendar year prior to the patient's negative colonoscopy. Adenoma detection rate was defined as a continuous variable in statistical analyses and was also dichotomized as at or above vs below the median for descriptive analyses. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome (postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer) was tumor registry-verified colorectal adenocarcinoma diagnosed at least 6 months after any negative colonoscopy (all indications). The secondary outcomes included death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Results: Among 735 396 patients who had 852 624 negative colonoscopies, 440 352 (51.6%) were performed on female patients, median patient age was 61.4 years (IQR, 55.5-67.2 years), median follow-up per patient was 3.25 years (IQR, 1.56-5.01 years), and there were 619 postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers and 36 related deaths during more than 2.4 million person-years of follow-up. The patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates had significantly lower risks for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (hazard ratio [HR], 0.97 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.96-0.98]) and death from postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (HR, 0.95 per 1% absolute adenoma detection rate increase [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]) across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values, with no interaction by sex (P value for interaction = .18). Compared with adenoma detection rates below the median of 28.3%, detection rates at or above the median were significantly associated with a lower risk of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer (1.79 vs 3.10 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -12.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95% CI, -10.3 to -13.4]; HR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.52-0.73]) and related deaths (0.05 vs 0.22 cases per 10 000 person-years; absolute difference in 7-year risk, -1.2 per 10 000 negative colonoscopies [95%, CI, -0.80 to -1.69]; HR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.11-0.65]). Conclusions and Relevance: Within 3 large community-based settings, colonoscopies by physicians with higher adenoma detection rates were significantly associated with lower risks of postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer across a broad range of adenoma detection rate values. These findings may help inform recommended targets for colonoscopy quality measures.

Indexed as

AdenocarcinomaAdenomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35670788
PMCPMC9175074
OpenAlexW4281824250

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.