Literature DB >> 24246797

Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience.

Charles J Kahi1, Krishna C Vemulapalli2, Cynthia S Johnson3, Douglas K Rex2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated marker of colonoscopy quality. However, the optimal measurement method is unclear.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of our study were to (1) define benchmarks for the number of adenomas per screening colonoscopy (APC) quality metric; (2) study the association between ADRs for screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications; and (3) explore the association of the screening ADR with an overall ADR inclusive of all colonoscopy indications.
DESIGN: Retrospective study.
SETTING: University hospital and associated ambulatory surgery center endoscopy units. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥50 years who underwent colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or diagnostic indications by 20 endoscopists between January 1, 1999 and April 30, 2012. INTERVENTION: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: ADR, APC for screening, surveillance, and diagnostic indications.
RESULTS: A total of 21,766 colonoscopies were included. The indication was screening in 7434 (34.2%), surveillance in 8338 (38.3%), and diagnostic in 5994 (27.5%). The screening ADRs and APCs were significantly correlated (R = 0.91; P < .0001). For men, an ADR of 25% corresponded to an APC of 0.46 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-0.57); for women, an ADR of 15% corresponded to an APC of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.13-0.27). Overall, the ADR stratified by colonoscopy indication was highest for surveillance, followed by screening, then diagnostic. For men, a screening ADR of 25% corresponded to a surveillance ADR of 31.9% (95% CI, 24.8%-38.9%); for women, an ADR of 15% corresponded to a surveillance ADR of 24.3% (95% CI, 18.3%-30.5%). The corresponding diagnostic ADRs were 17.0% (95% CI, 12.4%-21.6%) and 15.4% (95% CI, 11.5%-19.3%), respectively. There was significant correlation between screening ADR and an overall ADR inclusive of all colonoscopy indications. LIMITATIONS: External generalizability, retrospective design.
CONCLUSION: We propose minimum screening APC detection benchmarks of 0.50 for men and 0.20 for women. ADRs for screening, surveillance, and diagnostic colonoscopy are correlated and can be used to derive a simplified overall ADR inclusive of all colonoscopy indications. Published by Mosby, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24246797     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.10.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  28 in total

1.  Assessing bowel preparation quality using the mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy.

Authors:  Grace Clarke Hillyer; Benjamin Lebwohl; Richard M Rosenberg; Alfred I Neugut; Randi Wolf; Corey H Basch; Jennie Mata; Edwin Hernandez; Douglas A Corley; Steven Shea; Charles E Basch
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 2.  Quality in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Katherine T Brunner; Audrey H Calderwood
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2015-10

Review 3.  Validated Scales for Colon Cleansing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Robin Parmar; Myriam Martel; Alaa Rostom; Alan N Barkun
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  Providing data for serrated polyp detection rate benchmarks: an analysis of the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Lynn F Butterly; Julia E Weiss; Christina M Robinson
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-01-31       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  FITting ADR to colonoscopy indication.

Authors:  C Hassan; A Repici; D K Rex
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-09-20       Impact factor: 4.623

6.  Adenoma Detection Rate: I Will Show You Mine if You Show Me Yours.

Authors:  Alexandre Oliveira Ferreira; Catarina Fidalgo; Carolina Palmela; Maria Pia Costa Santos; Joana Torres; Joana Nunes; Rui Loureiro; Rosa Ferreira; Elídio Barjas; Luísa Glória; António Alberto Santos; Marília Cravo
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-11-23

7.  Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing.

Authors:  Timothy D Imler; Justin Morea; Charles Kahi; Eric A Sherer; Jon Cardwell; Cynthia S Johnson; Huiping Xu; Dennis Ahnen; Fadi Antaki; Christopher Ashley; Gyorgy Baffy; Ilseung Cho; Jason Dominitz; Jason Hou; Mark Korsten; Anil Nagar; Kittichai Promrat; Douglas Robertson; Sameer Saini; Amandeep Shergill; Walter Smalley; Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-03-10       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 8.  Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review.

Authors:  Maximilian Stephens; Luke F Hourigan; Mark Appleyard; George Ostapowicz; Mark Schoeman; Paul V Desmond; Jane M Andrews; Michael Bourke; David Hewitt; David A Margolin; Gerald J Holtmann
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04-28       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics.

Authors:  Gottumukkala S Raju; Phillip J Lum; Rebecca S Slack; Selvi Thirumurthi; Patrick M Lynch; Ethan Miller; Brian R Weston; Marta L Davila; Manoop S Bhutani; Mehnaz A Shafi; Robert S Bresalier; Alexander A Dekovich; Jeffrey H Lee; Sushovan Guha; Mala Pande; Boris Blechacz; Asif Rashid; Mark Routbort; Gladis Shuttlesworth; Lopa Mishra; John R Stroehlein; William A Ross
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-04-22       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 10.  What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

Authors:  Kelli S Hancock; Ranjan Mascarenhas; David Lieberman
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2016-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.