Literature DB >> 23735919

PDR or ADR as a quality indicator for colonoscopy.

Felix W Leung.   

Abstract

Interval (missed) cancers and lower-than-expected mortality reduction of proximal colon cancers after screening colonoscopy drew attention to quality indicators. Small proximal polyps (prone to be advanced neoplasms) missed by colonoscopy are possible contributing factors. In this issue of AJG, the subject of polyp detection rates (PDRs) and adenoma detection rates (ADRs) in the proximal and distal colon is discussed by one group of investigators to address the issue of monitoring performance and to achieve improvement. The authors observed that these two parameters correlated well in segments proximal to the splenic flexure, but not in the left colon. They suggested that caution should be exercised when using PDR as a surrogate for ADR if data from the rectum and sigmoid were included. Avoidance of missed lesions at the time of colonoscopy may require new adjunct measures to enhance ADR. The impact of new adjunct measures on ADR is mixed. In contrast to water immersion, water exchange during insertion has consistently increased ADR during withdrawal inspection. Water exchange may be a suitable alternative platform to replace insertion by air insufflation in the evaluation of new adjunct measures of quality improvement to increase ADR. Payment reforms may be necessary to bring about inclusion of ADR reporting for monitoring of quality performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23735919     DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.99

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  7 in total

1.  Multiple, zonal and multi-zone adenoma detection rates according to quality of cleansing during colonoscopy.

Authors:  Stefano Pontone; Cesare Hassan; Roberta Maselli; Paolo Pontone; Rita Angelini; Manuela Brighi; Gregorio Patrizi; Daniele Pironi; Fabio Massimo Magliocca; Angelo Filippini
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 4.623

2.  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

Review 3.  Antispasmodic drugs in colonoscopy: a review of their pharmacology, safety and efficacy in improving polyp detection and related outcomes.

Authors:  Santosh Sanagapalli; Kriti Agnihotri; Rupert Leong; Crispin John Corte
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-10-03       Impact factor: 4.409

4.  Simple colonoscopy reporting system checking the detection rate of colon polyps.

Authors:  Jae Hyun Kim; Youn Jung Choi; Hye Jung Kwon; Seun Ja Park; Moo In Park; Won Moon; Sung Eun Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Colonoscopy: quality indicators.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  Clin Transl Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-02-26       Impact factor: 4.488

6.  Implementation of colonoscopy quality monitoring in a Belgian university hospital with integrated computer-based extraction of adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Sohaib Ouazzani; Arnaud Lemmers; Federico Martinez; Raphael Kindt; Olivier Le Moine; Myriam Delhaye; Marianna Arvanitakis; Pieter Demetter; Jacques Devière; Pierre Eisendrath
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-02-03

7.  Will purposely seeking detect more colorectal polyps than routine performing during colonoscopy?

Authors:  Yanliu Chu; Juan Zhang; Ping Wang; Tian Li; Shuyi Jiang; Qinfu Zhao; Feng Liu; Xiaozhong Gao; Xiuli Qiao; Xiaofeng Wang; Zhenhe Song; Heye Liang; Jing Yue; Enqiang Linghu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-10-16       Impact factor: 1.817

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.