Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775559›Full record

ReviewCurrent gastroenterology reports2025

Traditional and Novel Colonoscopy Quality Metrics: What's Important in 2025.

Carl L Kay, Geoffrey A Bader, Charles B Miller

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Carl L KayCarl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, 590 Medical Center Road, 76544-5060, Fort Cavazos, TX, USA. carl.kay91@gmail.com.
Geoffrey A BaderRoyal Air Force, Lakenheath, UK.
Charles B MillerUniversity of Texas Health San Antonio, San Antonio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BenchmarkingColonoscopyGastroenterologyQuality Indicators, Health CareAdenomaColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicAdenoma detection rateBowel preparationCecal intubation rateColonoscopy quality metricsColorectal cancer preventionSessile serrated lesion detection rate

Identifiers

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.