ArticleJAMA2022
Association of Physician Adenoma Detection Rates With Postcolonoscopy Colorectal Cancer.
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.
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
65 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.
- AGA Living Clinical Practice Guideline on Computer-Aided Detection-Assisted Colonoscopy.Gastroenterology · 2025Guideline
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Guideline
- Clinical and Genomic Characterization of Interval Colorectal Cancer in 3 Prospective Cohorts.Gastroenterology · 2022Pooled it
- Computer-Assisted Colonoscopy in High-Adenoma Detection Rate Settings in a High-Risk Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Low-residue diet with oral nutritional supplements prior to colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation: an endoscopist-blinded, randomized controlled trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Trial
- Optimized computer-assisted technique for increasing adenoma detection during colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2025Trial
- Interpreting the results from the first randomised controlled trial of colonoscopy: does it save lives?BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Trial
- Computer-aided Detection of Polyps Does Not Improve Colonoscopist Performance in a Pragmatic Implementation Trial.Gastroenterology · 2023Trial
- Sporadic Adenoma Detection During Routine IBD Colonoscopies: A Secondary Analysis of Prospectively Collected Data.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Practice patterns of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses: an international survey study.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Derivation and Validation of a Predictive Model for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Among Average-Risk Adults in China.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Bowel Preparation in Quality Guidelines and Clinical Practice.Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics · 2026Review
- Enhanced adenoma detection with Endocuff Vision: a GRADE assessed systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Adenoma detection rates during screening colonoscopy performed by interventional gastroenterologists and general gastroenterologists.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2026Article
- Sessile Serrated Lesion Detection Rate and Colorectal Cancer Risk and Mortality.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Colonoscopy Quality and Strategies for Improvement.Gut and liver · 2026Review
- Colonoscopy Quality Indicators in Transition: From Adenoma Detection Rate to Serrated Lesion Detection and Beyond.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Human-machine collaboration in colorectal cancer screening: a narrative review of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- [How do we ensure quality in endoscopy?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.