ReviewGut and liver2026
Colonoscopy Quality and Strategies for Improvement.
Review in Gut and liver, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Association Between Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time and Adenoma Detection: Evidence of a Continuous Dose-Response Relationship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Multidisciplinary Strategy for Managing Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Waiting Lists Within the ULSS 3 Serenissima Health Authority in the Venice Metropolitan Area.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Human-machine collaboration in colorectal cancer screening: a narrative review of artificial intelligence-assisted colonoscopy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy plays a pivotal role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and reduces CRC incidence and mortality. Its effectiveness depends on colonoscopist performance, which can vary. Missed lesions during colonoscopy can lead to post-colonoscopy CRC (PCCRC), making high-quality colonoscopy essential for maximizing the preventive benefit of CRC screening. This review highlights the significance of colonoscopy quality indicators and practices for improvement. Bowel preparation, cecal intubation, and withdrawal time are key process indicators for procedure quality and are closely associated with the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and PCCRC risk. Given the role of colonoscopy in preventing CRC through the removal of precancerous lesions, the ADR serves as the core quality metric and the most reliable predictor of PCCRC. Serrated polyps have gained attention in colonoscopy quality research, as 15% to 30% of CRCs arise from serrated lesions, with an increased detection rate inversely associated with PCCRC risk. This emphasizes the critical need for continuous efforts by colonoscopists to enhance performance quality. Systemic interventions, audits and feedback during endoscopist education, basic and enhanced withdrawal and inspection techniques, and technologies such as mucosal exposure devices and computer-aided detection have demonstrated efficacy in increasing the ADR. While artificial intelligence has shown promise in increasing the ADR, inconsistent outcomes in real-world studies underscore the continued importance of the fundamental aspects of high-quality colonoscopy techniques, including complete mucosal exposure. Understanding quality indicators and ensuring high-performance quality in daily practice will ultimately lead to better CRC prevention outcomes.
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.