ArticleThe American journal of gastroenterology2024
Association of Endoscopist Colonoscopy Quality Measures With Follow-Up Colonoscopy Outcomes After Positive Stool Tests (Multitarget Stool DNA or Fecal Immunochemical Test): Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis of Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.
Article in The American journal of gastroenterology, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Navigating false-positive outcomes after stool-based colorectal cancer screening tests: a scoping review.BMC gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Serrated polyps in the colorectum: clinical significance and future directions.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionNegative colonoscopies following positive stool tests could result from stool test characteristics or from the quality of endoscopist performance. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry data to examine the association between endoscopist detection rates and polyp yield in colonoscopies performed for positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT) or multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test to evaluate the degree to which positive stool tests followed by negative colonoscopy ("false positives") vary with endoscopist quality. In addition, we investigated the frequency of significant polyps in the subgroup of highest quality colonoscopies following positive stool tests.
methodsWe compared the frequencies of negative colonoscopies and of specific polyps following positive stool tests across quartiles of endoscopist adenoma detection rate (ADR) and clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate (CSSDR).
resultsOur sample included 864 mt-sDNA+ and 497 FIT+ patients. We found a significantly lower frequency of negative colonoscopies following positive stool tests among endoscopists with higher ADR and CSSDR, particularly in the 2 highest quartiles. In addition, detection of any adenoma after a positive stool test for endoscopists in the fourth ADR quartile was 63.3% (FIT+) and 62.8% (mt-sDNA+). Among endoscopists in the fourth CSSDR quartile, sessile serrated lesions were found in 29.2% of examinations following a positive mt-sDNA and in 13.5% following FIT+ examinations. DISCUSSION: The frequency of negative colonoscopies after positive stool tests was significantly higher in examinations performed by endoscopists with low ADR and CSSDR. Our results also suggest a benchmark target of at least 40% for ADR in patients with mt-sDNA+ or FIT+ tests and 20% for sessile serrated lesions in mt-sDNA+ patients.
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.