Literature DB >> 22341102

Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies.

Daniel A Leffler1, Rakhi Kheraj, Arjun Bhansali, Hanako Yamanaka, Naama Neeman, Sunil Sheth, Mandeep Sawhney, J Thomas Lamont, Mark D Aronson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adenoma detection rate is an important measure of colonoscopy quality; however, factors including procedure order that contribute to adenoma detection are incompletely understood.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to prospectively evaluate factors associated with adenoma detection rate.
DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. Data were collected on patient and physician characteristics, trainee participation, time of day, and case rank.
SETTING: Outpatient tertiary-care center. PATIENTS: This study involved consecutive patients presenting for first screening colonoscopies. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Adenoma and polyp detection rates (proportion of cases with one or more lesion detected) and ratios (mean number of lesions detected per case).
RESULTS: A total of 2139 colonoscopies were performed by 32 gastroenterologists. Detection rates were 42.7% for all polyps, 25.4% for adenomas, and 5.0% for advanced adenomas. Adenoma detection was associated with male sex and increasing age on multivariate analysis. In the overall study cohort, time of day and case rank were not significantly associated with detection rates. In post hoc analysis, polyp and adenoma detection rates appeared lower after the fifth case of the day for endoscopists with low volumes of cases and after the tenth case of the day for endoscopists with high volumes of cases. LIMITATION: Single center.
CONCLUSION: Overall, time of day and case rank did not influence adenoma detection rate. We observed a small but significant decrease in detection rates in later procedures, which was dependent on physician typical procedure volume. These findings imply that colonoscopy quality in general is stable throughout the day; however, there may be a novel "stamina effect" for some endoscopists, and interventions aimed at improving colonoscopy quality need to take individual physician practice styles into consideration.
Copyright © 2012 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22341102     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.11.021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  14 in total

1.  Procedure volume influences adherence to celiac disease guidelines.

Authors:  Benjamin Lebwohl; Robert M Genta; Robert C Kapel; Daniel Sheehan; Nina S Lerner; Peter H Green; Alfred I Neugut; Andrew Rundle
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 2.566

2.  Lack of impact on polyp detection by fellow involvement during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Young S Oh; Chelsea L Collins; Shamsuddin Virani; Min-Su Kim; Julie A Slicker; Jeffrey L Jackson
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2013-05-22       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Morning colonoscopies are associated with improved adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Tze Yeong Teng; Shao Nan Khor; Manimegalai Kailasam; Wei Keat Cheah; Cheryl Chien Li Lau
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-22       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Endoscopist fatigue estimates and colonoscopic adenoma detection in a large community-based setting.

Authors:  Alexander Lee; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Virginia P Quinn; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Detection rate and proximal shift tendency of adenomas and serrated polyps: a retrospective study of 62,560 colonoscopies.

Authors:  Shuling Chen; Kaiyu Sun; Kang Chao; Yuli Sun; Liru Hong; Zijin Weng; Yi Cui; Minhu Chen; Shenghong Zhang
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2017-12-27       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 6.  Seeing better--Evidence based recommendations on optimizing colonoscopy adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Javier Aranda-Hernández; Jason Hwang; Gabor Kandel
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-07       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Rates of Duodenal Biopsy During Upper Endoscopy Differ Widely Between Providers: Implications for Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Max Pitman; David S Sanders; Peter H R Green; Benjamin Lebwohl
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-02       Impact factor: 3.062

8.  Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample.

Authors:  Felippe O Marcondes; Rebecca A Gourevitch; Robert E Schoen; Seth D Crockett; Michele Morris; Ateev Mehrotra
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2018-02-03       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 9.  What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

Authors:  Kelli S Hancock; Ranjan Mascarenhas; David Lieberman
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-06

10.  Development and validation of the PROcedural Sedation Assessment Survey (PROSAS) for assessment of procedural sedation quality.

Authors:  Daniel A Leffler; Bolanle Bukoye; Mandeep Sawhney; Tyler Berzin; Kenneth Sands; Sona Chowdary; Anita Shah; Sheila Barnett
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-10-05       Impact factor: 9.427

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.