ArticleScientific reports2022
Leveraging electronic medical record functionality to capture adenoma detection rate.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Overall Polyp Detection Rate as a Surrogate Measure for Screening Efficacy Independent of Histopathology: Evidence from National Endoscopy Database.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Use of Epic Electronic Health Record System for Health Care Research: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring the adenoma detection rate (ADR) is critical to providing quality care, however it is also challenging. We aimed to develop a tool using pre-existing electronic health record (EHR) functions to accurately and easily measure total ADR and to provide real-time feedback for endoscopists. We utilized the Epic EHR. With the help of an Epic analyst, using existing tools, we developed a method by which endoscopy staff could mark whether an adenoma was detected for a given colonoscopy. Using these responses and all colonoscopies performed by the endoscopist recorded in the EHR, ADR was calculated in a report and displayed to endoscopists within the EHR. One endoscopist piloted the tool, and results of the tool were validated against a manual chart review. Over the pilot period the endoscopist performed 145 colonoscopies, of which 78 had adenomas. The tool correctly identified 76/78 colonoscopies with an adenoma and 67/67 of colonoscopies with no adenomas (97.4% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 98% accuracy). There was no difference in ADR as determined by the tool compared to manual review (53.1% vs. 53.8%, p = 0.912). We successfully developed and pilot tested a tool to measure ADR using existing EHR functionality.
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.