ArticleCureus2025
Adenoma Detection and the Endoscopist: Assessing the Effects of Insourcing in UK Endoscopy Services.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Endoscopy services in the UK often supplement staffing through insourcing, yet the impact of this model on diagnostic outcomes remains unclear. This study evaluates differences in polyp and colorectal cancer detection between standard hospital endoscopists and insourced endoscopists at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Methods A retrospective observational study was conducted from March 1, 2022, to February 28, 2024, involving 2,173 diagnostic colonoscopies. All insourced procedures (n=1,205) were included, while a systematic one-in-five sampling approach yielded 968 hospital-based procedures. Only diagnostic colonoscopies were considered, excluding therapeutic, bowel cancer screening programme (BCSP), and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) surveillance cases. All polyps identified during procedures were histologically matched through pathology records. Demographics and histological findings were compared between the two groups using chi-squared and t-tests. Results Patient demographics were similar across groups. Hospital endoscopists had significantly higher detection rates for tubular adenomas (21.2% vs. 14.9%, p<0.001), hyperplastic polyps (8.5% vs. 5%, p=0.001), and colorectal carcinoma (1.7% vs. 0.5%, p=0.003). Insourced endoscopists detected more villous/tubulovillous adenomas (3.2% vs. 1.3%, p=0.004). A higher percentage of procedures by insourced endoscopists yielded no polyp findings (73% vs. 63.5%, p<0.001). Conclusion Hospital endoscopists demonstrated higher detection rates for most clinically significant polyps and colorectal cancer. The findings suggest potential variability in diagnostic yield based on the endoscopist's role, warranting further evaluation of training, audit, and performance standards across staffing models.
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.