ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2025
Comparison of quality performance metrics in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: a single-center experience.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background and Aims: Screening colonoscopy guidelines recommend a minimum adenoma detection rate (ADR) of 35%. There are no established benchmarks for surveillance colonoscopies, and data surrounding the utility of other quality metrics are limited. We aimed to define the relationship between ADR and alternative quality measures in the setting of screening and surveillance colonoscopies and to determine whether validated screening quality benchmarks can be extrapolated to surveillance procedures. Methods: A retrospective review of outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies at a tertiary health center was performed. ADR, adenomas per colonoscopy, adenomas per positive participant, polyp detection rate, right-sided polyp detection rate, and colonoscopy withdrawal times (CWTs) were analyzed for screening and surveillance colonoscopies. Results: In total, 2646 procedures (1884 screening, 762 surveillance) were analyzed. Surveillance ADR (CADR) was higher than screening ADR (65.6% ± 0.02% vs 47.0% ± 0.01%; Conclusions: Colonoscopy quality measures were significantly higher in surveillance procedures compared with screening procedures despite similar CWTs. Higher benchmarks should be considered to ensure quality surveillance colonoscopies.
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.