Literature DB >> 22442161

Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3).

Andreas Adler1, Karl Wegscheider, David Lieberman, Alireza Aminalai, Jens Aschenbeck, Rolf Drossel, Michael Mayr, Michael Mroß, Mathias Scheel, Andreas Schröder, Katharina Gerber, Gabriela Stange, Stephanie Roll, Ulrich Gauger, Bertram Wiedenmann, Lutz Altenhofen, Thomas Rosch.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Screening colonoscopy (SC) outcome quality is best determined by the adenoma detection rate (ADR). The substantial variability in the ADRs between endoscopists may reflect different skills, experience and/or equipment.
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the potential factors that may influence ADR variance, including case volume.
DESIGN: 12,134 consecutive SCs (mean age 64.5 years, 47% men) from 21 Berlin private-practice colonoscopists were prospectively studied during 18 months. The data were analysed using a two-level mixed linear model to adequately address the characteristics of patients and colonoscopists. The ADR was regressed after considering the following factors: sex, age, bowel cleanliness, NSAID intake, annual SC case volume, lifetime experience, instrument withdrawal times, instrument generations used, and the number of annual continuing medical education (CME) meetings attended by the physician. The case volume was also retrospectively analysed from the 2007 national SC registry data (312,903 colonoscopies and 1004 colonoscopists).
RESULTS: The patient factors that correlated with the ADR were sex, age (p<0.001) and low quality of bowel preparation (p=0.005). The factors that were related to the colonoscopists were the number of CME meetings attended (p=0.012) and instrument generation (p=0.001); these factors accounted for approximately 40% of the interphysician variability. Within a narrow range (6-11 min), the withdrawal time was not correlated with the ADR. Annual screening case volume did not correlate with the ADR, and this finding was confirmed by the German registry data.
CONCLUSIONS: The outcome quality of screening colonoscopies is mainly influenced by individual colonoscopist factors (ie, CME activities) and instrument quality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinical Trial Gov Registration number: NCT00860665.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22442161     DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300167

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  78 in total

1.  Impact of Bowel Preparation Quality on Adenoma Identification During Colonoscopy and Optimal Timing of Surveillance.

Authors:  Ju Seok Kim; Sun Hyung Kang; Hee Seok Moon; Eaum Seok Lee; Seok Hyun Kim; Jae Kyu Sung; Byung Seok Lee; Hyun Yong Jeong; Woo Suk Chung
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2015-06-06       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Stability of increased adenoma detection at colonoscopy. Follow-up of an endoscopic quality improvement program-EQUIP-II.

Authors:  Vivian Ussui; Susan Coe; Cynthia Rizk; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Significant Variation in the Detection Rates of Proximal Serrated Polyps Among Academic Gastroenterologists, Community Gastroenterologists, and Colorectal Surgeons in a Single Tertiary Care Center.

Authors:  Rohan Mandaliya; Kamal Baig; Michele Barnhill; Vagishwari Murugesan; Aniruddh Som; Usman Mohammed; Khushali Jhaveri; Shiva Shankar Vangimalla; Allyson Raymond; Jennifer Tran; Lubaba Hasan; James H Lewis; Won Cho
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist's workload.

Authors:  Majid A Almadi; Maida Sewitch; Alan N Barkun; Myriam Martel; Lawrence Joseph
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-05-21

5.  Distribution, size and shape of colorectal adenomas as determined by a colonoscopist with a high lesion detection rate: Influence of age, sex and colonoscopy indication.

Authors:  Johannes L Klein; Murat Okcu; Karl H Preisegger; Heinz F Hammer
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Positive correlation between endoscopist radiofrequency ablation volume and response rates in Barrett's esophagus.

Authors:  David I Fudman; Charles J Lightdale; John M Poneros; Gregory G Ginsberg; Gary W Falk; Maureen Demarshall; Milli Gupta; Prasad G Iyer; Lori Lutzke; Kenneth K Wang; Julian A Abrams
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-02-22       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Quality of colonoscopy in an emerging country: A prospective, multicentre study in Russia.

Authors:  Mariya Antipova; Mikhail Burdyukov; Mikhail Bykov; Leonid Domarev; Evgeny Fedorov; Sergey Gabriel; Konstantin Glebov; Sergey Kashin; Mikhail Knyazev; Aleksey Korotkevich; Andrey Kotovsky; Irina Kruglova; Vladimir Krushelnitsky; Ekaterina Mayat; Mikhail Merzlyakov; Dmitry Mtvralashvili; Aleksander Pyrkh; Oleg Sannikov; Evgeny Shitikov; Alexander Subbotin; Alexander Taran; Viktor Veselov; Dmitry Zavyalov; Cesare Hassan; Franco Radaelli; Lorenzo Ridola; Alessandro Repici; Mikhail Korolev
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.623

8.  Annual colonoscopy volume and maintenance of competency for surgeons.

Authors:  David Pace; Mark Borgaonkar; Brad Evans; Curtis Marcoux; Muna Lougheed; Vanessa Falk; Nikita Hickey; Meghan O'Leary; Jerry McGrath; Darrel Boone
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Factors influencing quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Ronald V Romero; Sanjiv Mahadeva
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-02-16

10.  Quality colonoscopy: a matter of time, technique or technology?

Authors:  Robert H Lee
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.