Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39680377›Full record

Observational studyJAMA2025

Adenoma Detection Rates by Physicians and Subsequent Colorectal Cancer Risk.

Nastazja D Pilonis, Piotr Spychalski, Mette Kalager, Magnus Løberg, Paulina Wieszczy, Joanna Didkowska, Urszula Wojciechowska, Jaroslaw Kobiela, Jaroslaw Regula, Thomas Rösch and 2 more

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [What is confirmed in colorectal cancer screening?]Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Nastazja D PilonisDepartment of Gastroenterological Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Piotr SpychalskiDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Transplant Surgery and General Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.
Mette KalagerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Magnus LøbergClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Paulina WieszczyCentre of Postgraduate Medical Education, Warsaw, Poland.
Joanna DidkowskaPolish National Cancer Registry, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Urszula WojciechowskaPolish National Cancer Registry, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Jaroslaw KobielaDepartment of Surgical Oncology, Transplant Surgery and General Surgery, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland.
Jaroslaw RegulaDepartment of Gastroenterological Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Thomas RöschDepartment of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Michael BretthauerClinical Effectiveness Research Group, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Michal F KaminskiDepartment of Gastroenterological Oncology, Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AdenomaColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerPhysiciansFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPoland

Identifiers

PMID39680377
PMCPMC11795324

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.