Observational studyJAMA2025
Adenoma Detection Rates by Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk.
Observational study in JAMA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- One in three adenomas could be missed by white-light colonoscopy - findings from a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Computer-Assisted Colonoscopy in High-Adenoma Detection Rate Settings in a High-Risk Population: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2026Trial
- Comments on "Artificial Intelligence in Colonoscopy Surveillance for Lynch Syndrome: Emerging Evidence, Lessons Learned From Average-Risk Populations, and Future Directions".International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- Sporadic Adenoma Detection During Routine IBD Colonoscopies: A Secondary Analysis of Prospectively Collected Data.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Derivation and Validation of a Predictive Model for Advanced Colorectal Neoplasia Among Average-Risk Adults in China.International journal of cancer · 2026Article
- AI Revolution in Upper GI: Endoscopic Diagnosis of Gastric Cancers and Premalignant Neoplasms.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Status of robotic and manual devices for advanced colonoscopy: Trends and applications of robotics in colonoscopy.World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Impact of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Computer Aided Detection System (CADe) on Colonoscopies Performed in Hawai'i.Hawai'i journal of health & social welfare · 2026Article
- Real-world evidence of water exchange colonoscopy improving adenoma detection rates: A propensity score-matched analysis.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2026Article
- A novel cloud-based artificial intelligence for real-time detection of colorectal neoplasia - a randomized controlled trial (EAGLE).NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- [What is confirmed in colorectal cancer screening?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Computational identification and validation of non-coding rna biomarkers in gastrointestinal cancer.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- Assessment of the impact of power business intelligence on adenoma detection rate: a prospective observational trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Effect of colonoscopy screening on the risk of colorectal cancer in China: a follow-up study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Benefits, burden, and harms of computer aided polyp detection with artificial intelligence in colorectal cancer screening: microsimulation modelling study.BMJ medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Patients of physicians with higher adenoma detection rates (ADRs) during colonoscopy have lower colorectal cancer (CRC) risk after screening colonoscopy (ie, postcolonoscopy CRC). Among physicians with an ADR above the recommended threshold, it is unknown whether improving ADR is associated with a lower incidence of CRC in their patients. Objective: To determine the association of improved ADR in physicians with a range of ADR values at baseline with CRC incidence among their patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 789 physicians in the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program were studied between 2000 and 2017, with final follow-up on December 31, 2022. Joinpoint regression analyses were used to identify trends between changes in ADR and postcolonoscopy CRC incidence. Rates of CRC after colonoscopy were compared between physicians whose ADR improved and those without improvement. ADR improvement was defined as either an improvement by at least 1 ADR sextile category or remaining in the highest category. Exposure: Physician ADR. Main Outcomes and Measures: Association of improved ADR with postcolonoscopy CRC incidence. Results: Of 485 615 patients (mean [SD] age, 57 [5.41] years; 60% female), 1873 CRC diagnoses and 474 CRC-related deaths occurred during a median follow-up of 10.2 years. Among individual physicians at baseline, median (IQR) ADR was 21.8% (15.9%-28.2%) and maximum ADR was 63.0%. Joinpoint regression showed a change in CRC incidence trends at an ADR level of 26%, corresponding to a CRC incidence of 27.1 per 100 000 person-years. Patients of physicians whose ADR was less than 26% at baseline and improved during follow-up had a postcolonoscopy CRC incidence of 31.8 (95% CI, 29.5-34.3) per 100 000 person-years, compared with 40.7 (95% CI, 37.8-43.8) per 100 000 person-years for patients of physicians with an ADR of less than 26% at baseline who did not improve during follow-up (difference, 8.9/100 000 person-years [95% CI, 5.06-12.74]; P < .001). Patients of physicians whose ADR was above 26% at baseline and improved during follow-up had a postcolonoscopy CRC incidence of 23.4 (95% CI, 18.4-29.8) per 100 000 person-years, compared with 22.5 (95% CI, 18.3-27.6) for patients of physicians whose ADR was above 26% at baseline and did not improve during follow-up (difference, 0.9/100 000 person-years [95% CI, -6.46 to 8.26]; P = .80). Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study, improved ADR over time was statistically significantly associated with lower CRC risk in patients who underwent colonoscopy compared with absence of ADR improvement, but only among patients whose physician had a baseline ADR of less than 26%.
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.