Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36300971›Full record

ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2022

Factors associated with lesion detection in colonoscopy among different indications.

Carolina Mangas-Sanjuan, Agustin Seoane, Marco Antonio Alvarez-Gonzalez, Alberto Luè, Adolfo Suárez, Verónica Álvarez-García, Luis Bujanda, Isabel Portillo, Natalia González, Lucía Cid-Gomez and 13 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

23 authors.

Carolina Mangas-SanjuanDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante, ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2611-1051
Agustin SeoaneDepartment of Gastroenterology, Parc de Salut Mar, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Marco Antonio Alvarez-GonzalezDepartment of Gastroenterology, Parc de Salut Mar, Hospital del Mar, Barcelona, Spain.
Alberto LuèDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínico Universitario Lozano Blesa, Aragon Health Research Institute, IIS Aragon, Zaragoza, Spain.
Adolfo SuárezDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Verónica Álvarez-GarcíaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario Central de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
Luis BujandaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Biodonostia Medical Research Institute, San Sebastián, Spain.
Isabel PortilloBasque Country Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme, Osakidetza, Basque Health Service, Bilbao, Spain.
Natalia GonzálezDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Instituto Universitario de Tecnologías Biomédicas & Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Canarias (CIBICAN), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Spain.
Lucía Cid-GomezDepartment of Gastroenterology, Complexo Hospitalario Universitario de Vigo, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica, Xerencia de Xestión Integrada de Vigo, Vigo, Spain.
Joaquín CubiellaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Complexo Hospitalario de Ourense, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica de Ourense, Pontevedra y Vigo, Ourense, Spain.
Elena Rodríguez-CamachoDirección Xeral de Saúde Pública, Consellería de Sanidade, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Marta PonceDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Pilar Díez-RedondoEndoscopy Unit, Hospital Universitario Rio Hortega, Valladolid, Spain.
Maite HerráizDepartment of Gastroenterology, Clínica Universitaria and Medical School, University of Navarra, Navarra, Spain.
María PelliséDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital Clínic, CIBERehd, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain.
Akiko OnoUnidad de Gestión Clínica de Digestivo, Hospital Universitario Virgen de la Arrixaca, Instituto Murciano de Investigación Biosanitaria, Murcia, Spain.
S Baile-MaxíaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante, ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.
L Medina-PradoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante, ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.
Murcia ODepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante, ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.
Pedro ZapaterUnit of Clinical Pharmacology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante, ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.
Rodrigo JoverDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hospital General Universitario de Alicante, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria y Biomédica de Alicante, ISABIAL, Alicante, Spain.
QUALISCOPIA Study Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveDifferent factors may influence colonoscopy performance measures. We aimed to analyze procedure- and endoscopist-related factors associated with detection of colorectal lesions and whether these factors have a similar influence in the context of different colonoscopy indications: positive fecal immunochemical test (+FIT) and post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopies.

methodsThis multicenter cross-sectional study included adults aged 40-80 years. Endoscopists (N = 96) who had performed ≥50 examinations were assessed for physician-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR), adenomas per colonoscopy rate (APCR), advanced ADR, serrated polyp detection (SDR), and serrated polyps per colonoscopy rate (SPPCR) were calculated.

resultsWe included 12,932 procedures, with 4810 carried out after a positive FIT and 1967 for surveillance. Of the 96 endoscopists evaluated, 43.8% were women, and the mean age was 41.9 years. The ADR, advanced ADR, and SDR were 39.7%, 17.7%, and 12.8%, respectively. Adenoma detection rate was higher in colonoscopies after a +FIT (50.3%) with a more than doubled advanced ADR compared to non-FIT procedures (27.6% vs. 13.0%) and similar results in serrated lesions (14.7% vs. 13.5%). Among all the detection indicators analyzed, withdrawal time was the only factor independently related to improvement (p < 0.001). Regarding FIT-positive and surveillance procedures, for both indications, withdrawal time was also the only factor associated with a higher detection of adenomas and serrated polyps (p < 0.001). Endoscopist-related factors (i.e., weekly hours dedicated to endoscopy, annual colonoscopy volume and lifetime number of colonoscopies performed) had also impact on lesion detection (APCR, advanced ADR and SPPCR).

conclusionsWithdrawal time was the factor most commonly associated with improved detection of colonic lesions globally and in endoscopies for + FIT and post-polypectomy surveillance. Physician-related factors may help to address strategies to support training and service provision. Our results can be used for establishing future benchmarking and quality improvement in different colonoscopy indications.

Indexed as

AdenomaAdultCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleadenoma detectioncolonoscopycolorectal cancerendoscopistserrated polyp

Identifiers

PMID36300971
PMCPMC9731659

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.