BACKGROUND & AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator originally developed for screening colonoscopies. However, it is unclear whether the ADR should be calculated using data from screening and surveillance examinations. The recommended benchmark ADR for screening examinations is 20% (15% for women and 25% for men ≥50 y). There are few data available to compare ADRs from surveillance vs screening colonoscopies. We used a population-based registry to compare ADRs from screening vs surveillance colonoscopies. The serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), a potential new quality indicator, also was examined. METHODS: By using data from the statewide New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, we excluded incomplete and diagnostic colonoscopies, and those performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, familial syndromes, or poor bowel preparation. We calculated the ADR and SDR (number of colonoscopies with at least 1 adenoma or serrated polyp detected, respectively, divided by the number of colonoscopies) from 9100 colonoscopies. The ADR and SDR were compared by colonoscopy indication (screening, surveillance), age at colonoscopy (50-64 y, ≥65 y), and sex. RESULTS: The ADR was significantly higher in surveillance colonoscopies (37%) than screening colonoscopies (25%; P < .001). This difference was observed for both sexes and age groups. There was a smaller difference in the SDR of screening (8%) vs surveillance colonoscopies (10%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based study, we found that addition of data from surveillance colonoscopies increased the ADR but had a smaller effect on the SDR. These findings indicate that when calculating ADR as a quality measure, endoscopists should use screening, rather than surveillance colonoscopy, data.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality indicator originally developed for screening colonoscopies. However, it is unclear whether the ADR should be calculated using data from screening and surveillance examinations. The recommended benchmark ADR for screening examinations is 20% (15% for women and 25% for men ≥50 y). There are few data available to compare ADRs from surveillance vs screening colonoscopies. We used a population-based registry to compare ADRs from screening vs surveillance colonoscopies. The serrated polyp detection rate (SDR), a potential new quality indicator, also was examined. METHODS: By using data from the statewide New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry, we excluded incomplete and diagnostic colonoscopies, and those performed in patients with inflammatory bowel disease, familial syndromes, or poor bowel preparation. We calculated the ADR and SDR (number of colonoscopies with at least 1 adenoma or serrated polyp detected, respectively, divided by the number of colonoscopies) from 9100 colonoscopies. The ADR and SDR were compared by colonoscopy indication (screening, surveillance), age at colonoscopy (50-64 y, ≥65 y), and sex. RESULTS: The ADR was significantly higher in surveillance colonoscopies (37%) than screening colonoscopies (25%; P < .001). This difference was observed for both sexes and age groups. There was a smaller difference in the SDR of screening (8%) vs surveillance colonoscopies (10%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based study, we found that addition of data from surveillance colonoscopies increased the ADR but had a smaller effect on the SDR. These findings indicate that when calculating ADR as a quality measure, endoscopists should use screening, rather than surveillance colonoscopy, data.
Authors: David A Lieberman; Douglas K Rex; Sidney J Winawer; Francis M Giardiello; David A Johnson; Theodore R Levin Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Mary Ann Greene; Lynn F Butterly; Martha Goodrich; Tracy Onega; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Allen J Dietrich; Amitabh Srivastava Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-06-12 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Polly A Newcomb; Amanda I Phipps; Michael N Passarelli; William M Grady; Melissa P Upton; Lee-Ching Zhu; John D Potter Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Michal F Kaminski; Jaroslaw Regula; Ewa Kraszewska; Marcin Polkowski; Urszula Wojciechowska; Joanna Didkowska; Maria Zwierko; Maciej Rupinski; Marek P Nowacki; Eugeniusz Butruk Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-05-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Vincent de Jonge; Jerome Sint Nicolaas; Djuna L Cahen; Willem Moolenaar; Rob J Th Ouwendijk; Thjon J Tang; Antonie J P van Tilburg; Ernst J Kuipers; Monique E van Leerdam Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-09-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee Journal: Epidemiol Rev Date: 2017-01-01 Impact factor: 6.222
Authors: Ronald G Racho; Murli Krishna; Susan G Coe; Colleen S Thomas; Julia E Crook; Nancy N Diehl; Michael B Wallace Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: William A Ross; Selvi Thirumurthi; Patrick M Lynch; Asif Rashid; Mala Pande; Mehnaz A Shafi; Jeffrey H Lee; Gottumukkala S Raju Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-01-10 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Julie E Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly A Harris; Rachael E Chicoine; Marie B Synnestvedt; Steve J Pyle; Jane S Chen; Sally D Herschorn; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jennifer S Haas; Anna N A Tosteson; Tracy Onega Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Christina M Robinson; Martha Goodrich; Julia E Weiss Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2014-05-10 Impact factor: 9.427