ArticleCureus2024
Choosing Your Endoscopist: A Retrospective Single-Centre Cohort Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Colorectal cancer is one of the most common internal malignancies affecting Australians, and colonoscopy is widely accepted as a part of comprehensive large bowel assessment. Different specialties perform colonoscopies, most commonly general surgeons and gastroenterologists. Analysing performance outcomes against benchmarks allows insight into inter-specialty differences and enables the improvement of overall service provision and quality. Methods We performed a retrospective single-centre cohort study on 2086 patients undergoing colonoscopies by seven surgeons (S) and nine gastroenterologists (G) between July 2021 and June 2023. Primary outcomes were comparative caecal intubation rates (CIR), photo documentation rates (PDR), documented withdrawal rates (DWR), withdrawal times (WT), and adenoma detection rates (ADR). Secondary outcomes characterised adenoma frequency, optimal WT, and indications for colonoscopies. Results We found significant differences in CIR (S: 94.9%, 990/1043; G: 99%, 1033/1043, P<0.01), PDR (S: 95.9%, 949/990; G: 99.1%, 1024/1033, P<0.01), DWR (S: 17.4%, 181/1043; G: 87.3%, 911/1043, P<0.01), WT >6 minutes (S: 82.3%, 149/181; G: 97.8%, 891/911, P<0.01), and ADR (S: 37.9%, 193/509; G: 59.7%, 421/705, P<0.01). Subgroup analysis revealed adenoma frequency peaked at 50-70 years old and optimal WT was ≥9 minutes. We demonstrated surgeons mainly perform colonoscopies for diverticulitis surveillance, abnormal imaging, post-cancer resections, and rectal bleeding, but gastroenterologists predominantly investigate bowel symptoms, polyp surveillance, positive faecal occult blood test, and anaemia. Conclusion Despite both specialties surpassing national standards in CIR and ADR, there were significant differences in performance indicators. We believe ADR differences could be explained by different indications specialties perform colonoscopies for. Increasing WT ≥9 minutes could improve ADR, and education on the usage of withdrawal timer on endoscopes will improve DWR.
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.