ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Benchmarking sessile serrated lesion detection in colonoscopy: individual endoscopist performance has greater impact than specialty training - a retrospective analysis of 12,064 procedures.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
- Anatomical Distribution and Prevalence of Dysplasia in Sessile Serrated Lesions: A Cohort Study Over Seven Years.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimsSessile serrated lesions (SSLs) are implicated in up to 30% of colorectal cancers through the serrated neoplasia pathway. Current guidelines lack established benchmarks for SSL detection rates (SSL-DR), with significant geographic variation reported internationally. The 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) recommend a minimum SSL-DR of > 6% for patients aged ≥ 45, while the Gastroenterological Society of Australia (GESA) maintains a 4% minimum. This study aimed to determine optimal SSL-DR benchmarks for clinical practice, compare detection rates between gastroenterologists and general surgeons, and identify whether specialty training or individual endoscopist performance primarily drives detection variability.
methodsRetrospective analysis of 12,064 colonoscopies performed between 2020 and 2023 at a regional Australian centre. SSL-DR was defined as the proportion of colonoscopies in which at least one SSL was detected. Detection rates were compared between gastroenterologists and general surgeons, with additional analyses excluding high-performing endoscopists. Statistical comparisons used chi-square tests and multivariable logistic regression. Post-hoc power analysis and bootstrap confidence intervals validated statistical robustness of findings and proposed benchmarks. Sequential exclusion analysis was employed to isolate individual performance effects from specialty-based differences.
resultsOverall SSL-DR was 20.7% (2,502/12,064 procedures), substantially exceeding international averages. Initially, gastroenterologists achieved significantly higher SSL-DR than general surgeons (24.5% vs. 12.4%, difference 12.1% points, 95% CI: 10.5-13.7, p < 0.001). However, after excluding two high-performing gastroenterologists who performed 48.1% of procedures but detected 71% of all SSLs (individual SSL-DRs: 31.6% and 24.5%), the remaining gastroenterologists' SSL-DR (11.6%) was comparable to general surgeons (12.4%, p = 0.28). The study achieved > 99% statistical power for detecting the observed differences. Bootstrap analysis (10,000 iterations) validated proposed benchmarks: minimum standard 8.5% (95% CI: 7.7-9.2%) target standard 13.0% (95% CI: 12.1-13.8) high-performance 17.0% (95% CI: 16.1-17.9%), and aspirational range 25.0-30.0%.
conclusionsIndividual endoscopist factors have greater impact on SSL detection than specialty training. The dramatic reversal of specialty advantage after excluding just two practitioners demonstrates that apparent specialty-based differences may be driven by a small number of high-performing individuals. Quality improvement initiatives should focus on identifying and disseminating practices of high-performing individuals rather than emphasizing specialty distinctions. We propose benchmarks that align with the 2024 ASGE-ACG guidelines while accounting for Australian detection patterns and provide a quality improvement framework for clinical implementation.
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.