Literature DB >> 22531983

Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - a nationwide analysis.

V Moritz1, M Bretthauer, H K Ruud, T Glomsaker, T de Lange, P Sandvei, G Huppertz-Hauss, Ø Kjellevold, G Hoff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A withdrawal time of at least 6 min has been recommended as a quality indicator for colonoscopy. One drawback of many of the studies that have investigated withdrawal time and produced conflicting results has been their single-center design involving few endoscopists. Therefore, the validity of withdrawal time as a quality measure remains unclear. This study explores the value of individual withdrawal time in a nationwide analysis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study comprised data from outpatient colonoscopies performed at 19 Norwegian centers from January to September 2009 and registered in the Norwegian Gastronet Quality Assurance (QA) program. The participating endoscopists were characterized by their median withdrawal time for visual colonoscopies (diagnostic colonoscopies without biopsy or therapy) and categorized into two visual withdrawal time (VWT) groups (< 6 min or ≥ 6 min) to analyze the predictive value of VWT for detection of one or more polyps ≥ 5 mm in diameter using multiple logistic regression models.
RESULTS: The study included 4429 consecutive colonoscopies performed by 67 endoscopists. The adjusted odds ratio for the detection of polyps ≥ 5 mm was 1.21 (95 %CI 0.94 - 1.56, P = 0.14) for endoscopists with a median VWT ≥ 6 min compared with endoscopists with a median VWT < 6 min.
CONCLUSION: Withdrawal time using 6 min as the threshold is not a strong predictor of the likelihood of finding a polyp during colonoscopy and should not be used as a quality indicator. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22531983     DOI: 10.1055/s-0032-1306898

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  18 in total

Review 1.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

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

Review 2.  Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

Authors:  Eelco C Brand; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-03

3.  Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Lynn Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Tracy L Onega; Christopher I Amos; Michael L Beach
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-01-07       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 4.  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

Review 5.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy: Current insights and caveats.

Authors:  Hendrikus Jm Pullens; Peter D Siersema
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-12-16

6.  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

7.  Colonic preparation before colonoscopy in constipated and non-constipated patients: a randomized study.

Authors:  Lisandro Pereyra; Daniel Cimmino; Carlos González Malla; Mariano Laporte; Nicolás Rotholtz; Carlos Peczan; Sandra Lencinas; Silvia Pedreira; Hugo Catalano; Luis Boerr
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Polyethylene glycol versus sodium picosulfalte bowel preparation in the setting of a colorectal cancer screening program.

Authors:  Omar Kherad; Sophie Restellini; Myriam Martel; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2015-08-24

9.  Withdrawal time in excellent or very poor bowel preparation qualities.

Authors:  David Widjaja; Manoj Bhandari; Vivian Loveday-Laghi; Mariela Glandt; Bhavna Balar
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-05-16

10.  Optimizing Colonoscopy Quality: From Bowel Preparation to Surveillance.

Authors:  Carla G Abou Fadel; Rani H Shayto; Ala I Sharara
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.