Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36531201›Full record

ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Serrated polyp detection rate in colonoscopies performed by gastrointestinal fellows.

Matthew Heckroth, Michael Eiswerth, Mohamed Elmasry, Khushboo Gala, Wenjing Cai, Scott Diamond, Amal Shine, David Liu, Nanlong Liu, Sudaraka Tholkage and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Matthew HeckrothDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Michael EiswerthDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Mohamed ElmasryDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Khushboo GalaDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Wenjing CaiDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Scott DiamondDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Amal ShineDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5251-3906
David LiuSchool of Medicine, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Nanlong LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2081-2175
Sudaraka TholkageDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9644-0358
Maiying KongDepartment of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Dipendra ParajuliDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Louisville, 550 S Jackson St, Louisville, KY 40202, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5241-5943
University of Louisville · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate (CSSDR) and proximal serrated polyp detection rate (PSDR) have been suggested as the potential quality benchmarks for colonoscopy (CSSDR = 7% and PSDR = 11%) in comparison to the established benchmark adenoma detection rate (ADR). Another emerging milestone is the detection rate of lateral spreading lesions (LSLs). Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate CSSDR, PSDR, ADR, and LSL detection rates among gastrointestinal (GI) fellows performing a colonoscopy. A secondary aim was to evaluate patient factors associated with the detection rates of these lesions. Design and Methods: A retrospective review of 799 colonoscopy reports was performed. GI fellow details, demographic data, and pathology found on colonoscopy were collected. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the factors associated with CSSDR, PSDR, ADR, and LSL detection rates. A Results: For our patient population, the median age was 58 years; 396 (49.8%) were male and 386 (48.6%) were African American. The 15 GI fellows ranged from first (F1), second (F2), or third (F3) year of training. We found an overall CSSDR of 4.4%, PSDR of 10.5%, ADR of 42.1%, and LSL detection rate of 3.2%. Female gender was associated with CSSDR, while only age was associated with PSDR. GI fellow level of training was associated with LSL detection rate, with the odds of detecting them expected to be four times higher in F2/F3s than F1s. Conclusion: Although GI fellows demonstrated an above-recommended ADR and nearly reached target PSDR, they failed to achieve target CSSDR. Future studies investigating a benchmark for LSL detection rate are needed to quantify if GI fellows are detecting these lesions at adequate rates.

Indexed as

adenomacolonoscopyfellowpolypserrated

Identifiers

PMID36531201
PMCPMC9749503
OpenAlexW4312065349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.