Louis Chaptini1, Adib Chaaya2, Fedele Depalma2, Krystal Hunter2, Steven Peikin2, Loren Laine3. 1. Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 2. Division of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Cooper Medical School of Rowan University, Cooper University Healthcare, Camden, New Jersey, USA. 3. Section of Digestive Diseases, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA; VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of polyp size is important because it is used to determine the surveillance interval after polypectomy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variation and accuracy in polyp size estimation among endoscopists and the impact on surveillance intervals after polypectomy. DESIGN: Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 873 members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS: Participants watched video recordings of 4 polypectomies and were asked to estimate the polyp sizes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of participants with polyp size estimates within 20% of the correct measurement and the frequency of incorrect surveillance intervals based on inaccurate size estimates. RESULTS: Polyp size estimates were within 20% of the correct value for 1362 (48%) of 2812 estimates (range 39%-59% for the 4 polyps). Polyp size was overestimated by >20% in 889 estimates (32%, range 15%-49%) and underestimated by >20% in 561 (20%, range 4%-46%) estimates. Incorrect surveillance intervals because of overestimation or underestimation occurred in 272 (10%) of the 2812 estimates (range 5%-14%). Participants in a private practice setting overestimated the size of 3 or of all 4 polyps by >20% more often than participants in an academic setting (difference = 7%; 95% confidence interval, 1%-11%). LIMITATIONS: Survey design with the use of video clips. CONCLUSION: Substantial overestimation and underestimation of polyp size occurs with visual estimation leading to incorrect surveillance intervals in 10% of cases. Our findings support routine use of measurement tools to improve polyp size estimates.
BACKGROUND: Accurate estimation of polyp size is important because it is used to determine the surveillance interval after polypectomy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variation and accuracy in polyp size estimation among endoscopists and the impact on surveillance intervals after polypectomy. DESIGN: Web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 873 members of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. INTERVENTIONS:Participants watched video recordings of 4 polypectomies and were asked to estimate the polyp sizes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Proportion of participants with polyp size estimates within 20% of the correct measurement and the frequency of incorrect surveillance intervals based on inaccurate size estimates. RESULTS:Polyp size estimates were within 20% of the correct value for 1362 (48%) of 2812 estimates (range 39%-59% for the 4 polyps). Polyp size was overestimated by >20% in 889 estimates (32%, range 15%-49%) and underestimated by >20% in 561 (20%, range 4%-46%) estimates. Incorrect surveillance intervals because of overestimation or underestimation occurred in 272 (10%) of the 2812 estimates (range 5%-14%). Participants in a private practice setting overestimated the size of 3 or of all 4 polyps by >20% more often than participants in an academic setting (difference = 7%; 95% confidence interval, 1%-11%). LIMITATIONS: Survey design with the use of video clips. CONCLUSION: Substantial overestimation and underestimation of polyp size occurs with visual estimation leading to incorrect surveillance intervals in 10% of cases. Our findings support routine use of measurement tools to improve polyp size estimates.
Authors: Lukejohn W Day; Michelle Nazareth; Justin L Sewell; J Lucas Williams; David A Lieberman Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2015-04-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Matthew D Rutter; James East; Colin J Rees; Neil Cripps; James Docherty; Sunil Dolwani; Philip V Kaye; Kevin J Monahan; Marco R Novelli; Andrew Plumb; Brian P Saunders; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Damian J M Tolan; Sophie Whyte; Stewart Bonnington; Alison Scope; Ruth Wong; Barbara Hibbert; John Marsh; Billie Moores; Amanda Cross; Linda Sharp Journal: Gut Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 31.793