ArticleBMC gastroenterology2026
Association of active endoscopy nurse participation with adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimThe adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Although optimized teamwork during endoscopy may improve mucosal inspection and lesion recognition, real-world evidence on active endoscopy nurse participation remains limited. This study aimed to examine the association between an enhanced nurse-participation workflow and adenoma detection outcomes during screening colonoscopy.
methodsThis retrospective single-center cohort study included 361 consecutive adults who underwent screening colonoscopy between January 2021 and December 2022. Based on standardized nursing documentation and procedure logs, cases were classified as conventional assistance (n = 223) or enhanced nurse participation (n = 138). The enhanced workflow involved active withdrawal observation, verbal prompting regarding incompletely visualized areas, patient repositioning, lesion image capture, and procedural coordination by nurses who had completed local unit training in lesion recognition and withdrawal-quality metrics. The primary outcome was ADR. Baseline characteristics, detection outcomes, and procedural quality indicators were compared between groups. Key proportions are additionally reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and absolute between-group differences. An exploratory multivariable logistic regression model was used to assess factors associated with adenoma detection.
resultsBaseline demographic and pre-procedure characteristics were comparable between groups. ADR was higher in the enhanced nurse participation group than in the conventional assistance group (38.4%, 95% CI 30.7-46.7 vs 25.6%, 95% CI 20.3-31.7; absolute difference 12.8 percentage points, 95% CI 3.0-22.7; P = 0.014). PDR was also higher (54.3% vs 41.7%; absolute difference 12.6 percentage points, 95% CI 2.1-22.9; P = 0.019). Mean withdrawal time was longer in the enhanced workflow group (9.1 +/- 1.6 vs 7.8 +/- 1.4 minutes, P < 0.001). In an exploratory procedure-level model, enhanced nurse participation remained associated with adenoma detection (adjusted OR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.18-2.69, P = 0.007), together with adequate bowel preparation and withdrawal time >=8 minutes.
conclusionAn enhanced nurse-participation workflow was associated with higher adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Because the intervention also involved longer withdrawal time and other process changes, and because residual operator- and workflow-level confounding cannot be excluded, these findings should be interpreted as hypothesis-generating rather than causal. Prospective multicenter studies are warranted.
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.