Literature DB >> 25445767

Adjusting for patient demographics has minimal effects on rates of adenoma detection in a large, community-based setting.

Christopher D Jensen1, Chyke A Doubeni1, Virginia P Quinn1, Theodore R Levin1, Ann G Zauber1, Joanne E Schottinger1, Amy R Marks1, Wei K Zhao1, Jeffrey K Lee1, Nirupa R Ghai1, Jennifer L Schneider1, Bruce H Fireman1, Charles P Quesenberry1, Douglas A Corley2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Reliable estimates of adenoma detection rates (ADRs) are needed to inform colonoscopy quality standards, yet little is known about the contributions of patient demographics to variation in ADRs. We evaluated the effects of adjusting for patient age, race/ethnicity, and family history of colorectal cancer on variations in ADRs and the relative rank order of physicians.
METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, we collected data from Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who were ≥ 50 years old who received colonoscopies from 2006 through 2008. We evaluated ADRs (before and after adjustment for age, sex, race/ethnicity, and family history of colorectal cancer) for 102 endoscopists who performed 108,662 total colonoscopies and 20,792 screening colonoscopies. Adenomas were identified from the pathology database, and cancers were detected by using the Kaiser Permanente Northern California cancer registry.
RESULTS: About two-thirds of examiners had unadjusted ADRs for screening exams that met gastroenterology society guidelines (>25% for men and >15% for women), although rates of detection varied widely (7.7%-61.5% for male patients and 1.7%-45.6% for female patients). Adjusting for case mix reduced the variation in detection rates (from 8-fold to 3-fold for male patients and from 27-fold to 5-fold for female patients), but the median change in physician order by detection rate was just 2 ranks, and few physicians changed quartiles of detection. For example, only 3 of 102 endoscopists moved into and 3 out of the lowest quartile of ADR.
CONCLUSIONS: In a community-based setting, most endoscopists met the ADR standards, although there was wide variation in ADRs, which was similar to that reported from academic and referral settings. Case-mix adjustment reduced variability but had only small effects on differences in ADRs between physicians, and only a small percentage of physicians changed quartiles of detection. Adjustments to ADRs are therefore likely only needed in settings in which physicians have very different patient demographics, such as in sex or age. Moderate differences in patient demographics between physicians are unlikely to substantially change rates of adenoma detection.
Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Colon Cancer; Endoscopy; Neoplasm; Polyp

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25445767      PMCID: PMC4369190          DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2014.10.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 1542-3565            Impact factor:   11.382


  33 in total

1.  Evaluation of polyp detection in relation to procedure time of screening or surveillance colonoscopy.

Authors:  William Sanchez; Gavin C Harewood; Bret T Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.

Authors:  D A Lieberman; D G Weiss; J H Bond; D J Ahnen; H Garewal; G Chejfec
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Results of repeat sigmoidoscopy 3 years after a negative examination.

Authors:  Robert E Schoen; Paul F Pinsky; Joel L Weissfeld; Robert S Bresalier; Timothy Church; Philip Prorok; John K Gohagan
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-02       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Location of adenomas missed by optical colonoscopy.

Authors:  Perry J Pickhardt; Pamela A Nugent; Pauline A Mysliwiec; J Richard Choi; William R Schindler
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-09-07       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Invasive colorectal cancer detected up to 3 years after a colonoscopy negative for cancer.

Authors:  O Hosokawa; S Shirasaki; Y Kaizaki; H Hayashi; K Douden; M Hattori
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy.

Authors:  M Leaper; M J Johnston; M Barclay; B R Dobbs; F A Frizelle
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 10.093

7.  Inter-endoscopist variation in polyp and neoplasia pick-up rates in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  M Bretthauer; E Skovlund; T Grotmol; E Thiis-Evensen; G Gondal; G Huppertz-Hauss; P Efskind; B Hofstad; S Thorp Holmsen; T J Eide; G Hoff
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.423

8.  Colonoscopic miss rates for right-sided colon cancer: a population-based analysis.

Authors:  Brian Bressler; Lawrence F Paszat; Christopher Vinden; Cindy Li; Jingsong He; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.

Authors:  Douglas A Corley; Christopher D Jensen; Amy R Marks; Wei K Zhao; Jeffrey K Lee; Chyke A Doubeni; Ann G Zauber; Jolanda de Boer; Bruce H Fireman; Joanne E Schottinger; Virginia P Quinn; Nirupa R Ghai; Theodore R Levin; Charles P Quesenberry
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Wide variation in adenoma detection rates at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy.

Authors:  Wendy Atkin; Pauline Rogers; Christopher Cardwell; Claire Cook; Jack Cuzick; Jane Wardle; Rob Edwards
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 22.682

View more
  9 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  Causes of Socioeconomic Disparities in Colorectal Cancer and Intervention Framework and Strategies.

Authors:  John M Carethers; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-11-01       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Adenoma Detection Rates for Screening Colonoscopies in Smokers and Obese Adults: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Julia E Weiss; Christina M Robinson; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2017 Nov/Dec       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  Variation in Adenoma Detection Rate and the Lifetime Benefits and Cost of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Microsimulation Model.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Chyke A Doubeni; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Christopher D Jensen; Miriam P van der Meulen; Theodore R Levin; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Douglas A Corley; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.

Authors:  Ateev Mehrotra; Michele Morris; Rebecca A Gourevitch; David S Carrell; Daniel A Leffler; Sherri Rose; Julia B Greer; Seth D Crockett; Andrew Baer; Robert E Schoen
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 9.427

6.  Colorectal Cancer Screening in Switzerland: Cross-Sectional Trends (2007-2012) in Socioeconomic Disparities.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; Stéphane Cullati; Christine Bouchardy; Ida Welle; Claudine Burton-Jeangros; Orly Manor; Delphine S Courvoisier; Idris Guessous
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Development and validation of a prediction model for adenoma detection during screening and surveillance colonoscopy with comparison to actual adenoma detection rates.

Authors:  Eelco C Brand; Julia E Crook; Colleen S Thomas; Peter D Siersema; Douglas K Rex; Michael B Wallace
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-09-28       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Outcomes at follow-up of negative colonoscopy in average risk population: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Thomas Heisser; Le Peng; Korbinian Weigl; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2019-11-13

9.  Accurate Identification of Colonoscopy Quality and Polyp Findings Using Natural Language Processing.

Authors:  Jeffrey K Lee; Christopher D Jensen; Theodore R Levin; Ann G Zauber; Chyke A Doubeni; Wei K Zhao; Douglas A Corley
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 3.062

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.