ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2025
Traditional and Novel Colonoscopy Quality Metrics: What's Important in 2025.
Review in Current gastroenterology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Colonoscopy Quality Indicators in Transition: From Adenoma Detection Rate to Serrated Lesion Detection and Beyond.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Limited Diagnostic Yield of Routine Gastroscopy in FIT-Positive Patients.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review summarizes current landscape of colonoscopy quality metrics, with an emphasis on priority intraprocedural indicators. We aim to clarify the rationale, evidence, and practical implementation of both traditional and recently introduced metrics-highlighting which measures are most relevant for improving patient outcomes in 2025. RECENT
findingsThe 2024 ACG/ASGE guidelines reaffirmed the core quality indicators of adenoma detection rate (ADR), cecal intubation rate (CIR), bowel preparation adequacy, and guideline-based surveillance interval assignment. The guidelines also introduced new metrics such as sessile serrated lesion detection rate (SSLDR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), extended withdrawal time, and a distinct ADR benchmark for colonoscopies following positive fecal screening. Altogether, these updates reflect a shift toward more granular, detection-focused metrics. The traditional quality indicators remain the cornerstone of high colonoscopy quality due to their feasibility in most clinical settings and established correlation with reducing post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rates (PCCRC). New detection-based metrics, particularly SSLDR and APC, have independent impacts on lowering PCCRC, but unique challenges in becoming widely adopted. We advocate for endoscopists to establish a strong foundation of traditional colonoscopy quality metrics while working towards establishing systems to monitor novel quality metrics like SSLDR and APC. Quality measurement, whether automated or manually tracked, remains the key to delivering high-quality, cancer-preventing colonoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40775559What 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.