BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the main quality measures for colonoscopy, but it is burdensome to calculate and is not amenable to claims-based reporting. OBJECTIVE: To validate the correlation between polypectomy rates (PRs) and ADRs by using a large group of endoscopists. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Community and academic endoscopy units in the United States. SUBJECTS: Sixty endoscopists and their patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients with any adenoma and any polyp removed; correlation between ADRs and PRs. RESULTS: In total, 14,341 screening colonoscopies were included, and there was high correlation between endoscopists' PRs and ADRs in men ( r(s)= .91, P < .0001) and women (r(s) = .91, P < .0001). Endoscopists with PRs in the highest quartile had a significantly higher ADR than did those in the lowest quartile in men (44.6% vs 19.4%, P < .0001) and women (33.6% vs 11.6%, P < .0001). Endoscopists in the top polypectomy quartile also found more advanced adenomas than did endoscopists in the bottom quartile (men: 9.6% vs 4.6%, P = .0006; women: 6.3% vs 3.0%, P = .01). Benchmark PRs of 40% and 30% correlated with ADRs greater than 25% and 15% for men and women, respectively. LIMITATION: Retrospective analysis of a subset of a national endoscopic database. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists' PRs correlate well with their ADRs. Given its clinical relevance, its simplicity, and the ease with which it can be incorporated into claims-based reporting programs, the PR may become an important quality measure.
BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the main quality measures for colonoscopy, but it is burdensome to calculate and is not amenable to claims-based reporting. OBJECTIVE: To validate the correlation between polypectomy rates (PRs) and ADRs by using a large group of endoscopists. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Community and academic endoscopy units in the United States. SUBJECTS: Sixty endoscopists and their patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of patients with any adenoma and any polyp removed; correlation between ADRs and PRs. RESULTS: In total, 14,341 screening colonoscopies were included, and there was high correlation between endoscopists' PRs and ADRs in men ( r(s)= .91, P < .0001) and women (r(s) = .91, P < .0001). Endoscopists with PRs in the highest quartile had a significantly higher ADR than did those in the lowest quartile in men (44.6% vs 19.4%, P < .0001) and women (33.6% vs 11.6%, P < .0001). Endoscopists in the top polypectomy quartile also found more advanced adenomas than did endoscopists in the bottom quartile (men: 9.6% vs 4.6%, P = .0006; women: 6.3% vs 3.0%, P = .01). Benchmark PRs of 40% and 30% correlated with ADRs greater than 25% and 15% for men and women, respectively. LIMITATION: Retrospective analysis of a subset of a national endoscopic database. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists' PRs correlate well with their ADRs. Given its clinical relevance, its simplicity, and the ease with which it can be incorporated into claims-based reporting programs, the PR may become an important quality measure.
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John H Bond; Sidney Winawer; Theodore R Levin; Randall W Burt; David A Johnson; Lynne M Kirk; Scott Litlin; David A Lieberman; Jerome D Waye; James Church; John B Marshall; Robert H Riddell Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Zhongliang Chen; Deanna M Rothwell; Chris Vinden; Linda Rabeneck Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: D K Rex; C S Cutler; G T Lemmel; E Y Rahmani; D W Clark; D J Helper; G A Lehman; D G Mark Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 1997-01 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Robert L Barclay; Joseph J Vicari; Andrea S Doughty; John F Johanson; Roger L Greenlaw Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-14 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; J Richard Choi; William R Schindler Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-09-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer L Holub; Cynthia Morris; Lyle J Fagnan; Judith R Logan; LeAnn C Michaels; David A Lieberman Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2017-01-03 Impact factor: 4.333
Authors: Otto S Lin; Danielle La Selva; Jae-Myung Cha; Michael Gluck; Andrew Ross; Michael Chiorean; Richard A Kozarek Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-12-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Jill Tinmouth; Erin B Kennedy; David Baron; Mae Burke; Stanley Feinberg; Michael Gould; Nancy Baxter; Nancy Lewis Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2014-05