Literature DB >> 25817896

Adenoma detection rate varies greatly during colonoscopy training.

Sascha C van Doorn1, Robert B Klanderman1, Yark Hazewinkel1, Paul Fockens1, Evelien Dekker1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is considered the most important quality indicator for colonoscopy and varies widely among colonoscopists. It is unknown whether the ADR of gastroenterology consultants can already be predicted during their colonoscopy training.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ADR of fellows in gastroenterology and evaluate whether this predicts their ADR as gastroenterology consultants.
DESIGN: Retrospective observational study.
SETTING: Academic and regional centers. PATIENTS: Symptomatic patients undergoing colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The variance in ADR among 7 gastroenterology fellows during their training (between May 2004 and March 2012) and of the same fellows after they registered as consultants (between October 2011 and April 2014) was evaluated. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to compare the highest detector (endoscopist with highest ADR) with the individual fellows and to evaluate whether an ADR of 20% or higher during the training was predictive of a high ADR as a consultant.
RESULTS: During training, ADRs ranged from 14% to 36% (P < .001). Compared with the highest detector, the OR for detecting an adenoma ranged from 0.64 (95% CI, 0.40-1.03) to 0.29 (95% CI, 0.17-0.48). After registration, ADR ranged from 19.8% to 40.2% (P = .066). Compared with the highest detector during consultancy, the OR ranged from 0.64 (95% CI, 0.34-1.21) to 0.26 (95% CI, 0.13-0.52). Only 2 fellows significantly improved their ADR after completing their training. An ADR lower than 20% during training was associated with a lower ADR as a consultant (OR 0.51; 95% CI, 0.30-0.87). LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study.
CONCLUSIONS: Variance in ADR is already present during the endoscopy training of gastroenterology fellows. Most fellows do not improve their ADR after completing their training. These findings suggest that the ADR can be predicted during colonoscopy training, and we suggest that feedback and benchmarking should be implemented early during training of fellows in an effort to improve ADR in future daily practice as a consultant.
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25817896     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.038

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


  10 in total

1.  Seeking the Cecum: Assessing Metrics in Fellow Procedural Training.

Authors:  Michael Greenspan; Joshua Melson
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  A prospective randomized study of the use of an ultrathin colonoscope versus a pediatric colonoscope in sedation-optional colonoscopy.

Authors:  Koichiro Sato; Sayo Ito; Tomoyuki Kitagawa; Koichi Hirahata; Daisuke Hihara; Kenji Tominaga; Ichiro Yasuda; Iruru Maetani
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-05-09       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The Incidence, Distribution and Clinicopathology of Missed Colorectal Cancer After Diagnostic Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Edward Laurent; Hadi Hussain; Tak Kit Calvin Poon; Abraham A Ayantunde
Journal:  Turk J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 1.852

4.  Choice of sedation and its impact on adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopies.

Authors:  Rahman Nakshabendi; Andrew C Berry; Juan C Munoz; Bijo K John
Journal:  Ann Gastroenterol       Date:  2016 Jan-Mar

Review 5.  Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators.

Authors:  Colin J Rees; Roisin Bevan; Katharina Zimmermann-Fraedrich; Matthew D Rutter; Douglas Rex; Evelien Dekker; Thierry Ponchon; Michael Bretthauer; Jaroslaw Regula; Brian Saunders; Cesare Hassan; Michael J Bourke; Thomas Rösch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-10-08       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 6.  Training in Endoscopy: Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Hyun Joo Jang
Journal:  Clin Endosc       Date:  2017-07-31

7.  Should We Measure Adenoma Detection Rate for Gastroenterology Fellows in Training?

Authors:  Mustapha M El-Halabi; Patrick R Barrett; Melissa Martinez Mateo; Nabil F Fayad
Journal:  Gastroenterology Res       Date:  2018-02-08

8.  Study on the influence of assistant experience on the quality of colonoscopy: A pilot single-center study.

Authors:  Lixia Fu; Mugen Dai; Junwei Liu; Hua Shi; Jundi Pan; Yanmei Lan; Miaoxia Shen; Xiaoduo Shao; Bin Ye
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 1.817

9.  Simple feedback of colonoscopy performance improved the number of adenomas per colonoscopy and serrated polyp detection rate.

Authors:  Osamu Toyoshima; Shuntaro Yoshida; Toshihiro Nishizawa; Tadahiro Yamakawa; Toru Arano; Yoshihiro Isomura; Takamitsu Kanazawa; Hidehiko Ando; Yosuke Tsuji; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-06-17

10.  Prevalence of 'one and done' in adenoma detection rates: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

Authors:  Stacey A Fedewa; Joseph C Anderson; Christina M Robinson; Julie E Weiss; Robert A Smith; Rebecca L Siegel; Ahmedin Jemal; Lynn F Butterly
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2019-10-22
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.