Literature DB >> 28138858

Strategies to Increase Adenoma Detection Rates.

Eelco C Brand1,2, Michael B Wallace3.   

Abstract

OPINION STATEMENT: The adenoma detection rate (ADR), i.e., the proportion of average risk patients with at least one adenoma detected during screening colonoscopy, is inversely associated with the development of interval colorectal cancer. Increasing the ADR is therefore an important proxy for increase in quality and efficacy of (screening) colonoscopy. Several potentially modifiable factors, such as, procedural and technological factors, and quality improvement programs, and their effect on the ADR will be reviewed. Procedural factors, such as, bowel preparation, withdrawal time, and position changes of the patient are associated with the ADR. While the relation of others, such as inspection during insertion, use of antispasmodic agents, and second inspection in the proximal colon, with the ADR is not completely clear. Many new colonoscopy technologies have been evaluated over recent years and are still under evaluation, but no unequivocal positive effect on the ADR has been observed in randomized trials that have mostly been performed by experienced endoscopists with high baseline ADRs. Several quality improvement programs have been evaluated and seem to have a positive effect on endoscopists' ADR. Increase in ADR is important for the protective benefit of colonoscopy. There are now extensive methods to measure, benchmark, and improve ADR but increased awareness of these is critical. We have provided an overview of potential factors that can be used to increase personal ADRs in every day practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adenoma detection rate; Bowel preparation; Colonoscopy; Colonoscopy technology; Quality improvement; Withdrawal time.

Year:  2017        PMID: 28138858     DOI: 10.1007/s11938-017-0126-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol        ISSN: 1092-8472


  110 in total

1.  A multicenter pragmatic study of an evidence-based intervention to improve adenoma detection: the Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study.

Authors:  Praveen T Rajasekhar; Colin J Rees; Mike G Bramble; Douglas W Wilson; Matthew D Rutter; Brian P Saunders; A Pali S Hungin; James E East
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 10.093

2.  Utility of retroflexion in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  S Varadarajulu; W H Ramsey
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2001-03       Impact factor: 3.062

3.  Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates.

Authors:  D K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 9.427

Review 4.  Narrow band imaging versus conventional white light colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps.

Authors:  Aleksandar Nagorni; Goran Bjelakovic; Bratislav Petrovic
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-01-18

5.  The White Diet is preferred, better tolerated, and non-inferior to a clear-fluid diet for bowel preparation: A randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Joshua Butt; Cate Bunn; Eldho Paul; Peter Gibson; Gregor Brown
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.029

6.  Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates.

Authors:  Matthew Harrison; Navjot Singh; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Full-spectrum (FUSE) versus standard forward-viewing colonoscopy in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme.

Authors:  Cesare Hassan; Carlo Senore; Franco Radaelli; Giovanni De Pretis; Romano Sassatelli; Arrigo Arrigoni; Gianpiero Manes; Arnaldo Amato; Andrea Anderloni; Franco Armelao; Alessandra Mondardini; Cristiano Spada; Barbara Omazzi; Maurizio Cavina; Gianni Miori; Chiara Campanale; Giuliana Sereni; Nereo Segnan; Alessandro Repici
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 23.059

8.  The impact of hyoscine-N-butylbromide on adenoma detection during colonoscopy: meta-analysis of randomized, controlled studies.

Authors:  Emanuele Rondonotti; Oliver Zolk; Arnaldo Amato; Silvia Paggi; Alessandra Baccarin; Giancarlo Spinzi; Franco Radaelli
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-07-19       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  International collaboration between Japan and Chile to improve detection rates in colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Takuya Okada; Koji Tanaka; Hiroshi Kawachi; Takashi Ito; Tetsuro Nishikage; Tomoyuki Odagaki; Alejandro J Zárate; Udo Kronberg; Francisco López-Köstner; Stanko Karelovic; Sergio Flores; Ricardo Estela; Masahiro Tsubaki; Hiroyuki Uetake; Yoshinobu Eishi; Tatsuyuki Kawano
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2015-10-07       Impact factor: 6.860

10.  A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of prescribed patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal on adenoma detection.

Authors:  George Ou; Edward Kim; Pardis Lakzadeh; Jessica Tong; Robert Enns; Alnoor Ramji; Scott Whittaker; Hin Hin Ko; Brian Bressler; Lawrence Halparin; Eric Lam; Jack Amar; Jennifer Telford
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2014-03-12       Impact factor: 9.427

View more
  8 in total

1.  Does i-scan improve adenoma detection rate compared to high-definition colonoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Muhammad Aziz; Zohaib Ahmed; Hossein Haghbin; Asad Pervez; Hemant Goyal; Faisal Kamal; Abdallah Kobeissy; Ali Nawras; Douglas G Adler
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2022-06-10

2.  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

3.  Is water exchange superior to water immersion in detecting adenomas during colonoscopies? Results from a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Xin Shi; Dan Tian; Xiaofei Ye; Qiong Wu; Yanglin Pan; Zhiping Yang; Daiming Fan
Journal:  Oncotarget       Date:  2018-07-17

4.  Determination of withdrawal times in individualized opportunistic screening colonoscopies.

Authors:  Qiang Zhan; Li Xiang; Xinhua Zhao; Shengli An; Yongbai Zhou; Yangzhi Xu; Aimin Li; Side Liu
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 1.817

5.  Impact of cuff-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection: A protocol of systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qi Li; Hai-de Gao; Chun-Cheng Liu; Hao Zhang; Xun-Hai Li; Jia Wu; Xian-Kai Zhang
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2020-05       Impact factor: 1.889

6.  Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy.

Authors:  Yue Sui; Qing Wang; Hai-Hua Chen; Jun-Hui Lu; Qing Wen; Zhen-Zhen Wang; Guan-Feng Wang; Hui Jia; Tao Xiao; Na-Ping Wang; Jun-Lian Hao; Yi-Ping Zhang; Feng-Zhen Cao; Xiao-Peng Wu; Xing Chen
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-09-12       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Yue Sui; Xing Chen; Ting Ma; Junhui Lu; Tao Xiao; Zhenzhen Wang; Qing Wen; Guanfeng Wang; Hui Jia; Fengzhen Cao; Xiaopeng Wu; Yiping Zhang; Junlian Hao; Naping Wang
Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2022-06-02       Impact factor: 4.369

8.  A short telephone-call reminder improves bowel preparation, quality indicators and patient satisfaction with first colonoscopy.

Authors:  Marisol Gálvez; Angel Mario Zarate; Hector Espino; Fátima Higuera-de la Tijera; Richard Alexander Awad; Santiago Camacho
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2017-11-21
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.