ArticleGastrointestinal endoscopy2025
Colonoscopy quality measures and adherence to follow-up guidelines among endoscopists participating in a U.S. endoscopy registry.
Article in Gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Adherence to 2020 US Multi-Society Task Force Guidelines for Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: a Multicenter Real-Time Analysis.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2026Article
- Development and External Validation of a Large Language Model-Based Clinical Decision-Support System for Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026Article
- Adherence of Greek gastroenterologists to established quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopy.Annals of gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Explainable ResNet-long short-term memory model for the classification of bowel sounds frequency based on multifeature fusion.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsColonoscopy screening can substantially reduce colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. Colonoscopies may achieve maximum benefit when they are performed with high quality and accompanied by follow-up recommendations that adhere to clinical guidelines. This study aimed to determine to what extent endoscopists met targets for colonoscopy quality from 2016 through 2019 (the most recent years before the COVID-19 pandemic).
methodsWe examined measures of colonoscopy quality and recommended follow-up intervals in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium, a large nationwide endoscopy registry. The analysis included >2.5 million outpatient screening colonoscopies in average-risk adults aged 50 to 75 years.
resultsAt least 90% of endoscopists met performance targets for adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and adenoma detection rate. However, nonadherence to guidelines for follow-up intervals was common. For patients with no colonoscopy findings, 12.0% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤5 years instead of the guideline-recommended 10 years. For patients with 1 to 2 small tubular adenomas, 13.5% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤3 years instead of the guideline-recommended 5 to 10 years. For patients with small sessile serrated polyps, 30.7% received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≤3 years instead of the guideline-recommended 5 years. Some patients with higher risk findings received a follow-up interval recommendation of ≥5 years instead of the guideline-recommended 3 years, including 18.2% of patients with advanced serrated lesions.
conclusionsAdditional attention may be needed to achieve more consistent adherence to guidelines for colonoscopy follow-up recommendations.
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.