ArticleBMC gastroenterology2023
Effectiveness of switching endoscopists for repeat surveillance colonoscopy: a retrospective study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSurveillance colonoscopy decreases colorectal cancer mortality; however, lesions are occasionally missed. Although an appropriate surveillance interval is indicated, variations may occur in the methods used, such as scope manipulation or observation. Therefore, individual endoscopists may miss certain areas. This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of performing repeat colonoscopies with a different endoscopist from the initial procedure.
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed a database of 8093 consecutive colonoscopies performed in the Omori Red Cross Hospital from January 1st 2018 to June 30th 2021. Data from repeat total colonoscopies performed within three months were collected to assess missed lesions. The patients were divided into two groups according to whether the two examinations were performed by different endoscopists (group D) or the same endoscopist (group S). The primary outcome in both groups was the missed lesion detection rate (MLDR).
resultsOverall, 205 eligible patients were analyzed. In total, 102 and 103 patients were enrolled in groups D and S, respectively. The MLDR was significantly higher in group D (61.8% vs. 31.1%, P < 0.0001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis for the detection of missed lesions identified performance by the different endoscopists (odds ratio, 3.38; 95% CI, 1.81-6.30), and sufficient withdrawal time (> 6 min) (odds ratio, 3.10; 95% CI, 1.12-8.61) as significant variables.
conclusionsOverall, our study showed a significant improvement in the detection of missed lesions when performed by different endoscopists. When performing repeat colonoscopy, it is desirable that a different endoscopist perform the second colonoscopy.
trial registrationThis study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Omori Red Cross Hospital on November 28, 2022 (approval number:22-43).
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.