The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy
Open accessAbstract
Background There are no guidelines for the recommended interval to the next examination after colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation. Aims To identify factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy after initial examinations with suboptimal preparations, and to measure adenoma miss rates in this context. Methods We analyzed all colonoscopies over 3 years at a single, hospital-based endoscopy unit. We defined early repeat colonoscopies after a suboptimal preparation as those occurring <3 years after the index examination. Adenoma miss rates were calculated by dividing the number of lesions found on the second colonoscopy by the total on both examinations. Results Of 12,787 colonoscopies, preparation quality was suboptimal (poor or fair) in 3,047 (24%) patients. Among these 3,047 patients, repeat examination was performed in <3 years in 505 (17%). Factors associated with early repeat included lack of cecal intubation (OR 3.62, 95%CI 2.50–5.24) and finding a polyp (OR 1.55, 95%CI 1.17–2.07). Among 216 repeat colonoscopies with an optimal preparation, 198 adenomas were identified, of which 83 were only seen on the second examination, an adenoma miss rate of 42% (95%CI 35–49). The advanced adenoma miss rate was 27% (95%CI 17–41). For colonoscopies repeated in <1 year, the adenoma and advanced adenoma miss rates were 35% and 36% respectively. Limitations Single-center, retrospective study. Conclusions While a minority of patients undergo early repeat examination after a suboptimally prepared colonoscopy, the miss rates for suboptimally prepared colonoscopies were high, suggesting that suboptimal bowel preparation substantially decreases colonoscopy effectiveness, and may mandate an early follow-up examination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Andrews, K. S., Brooks, D., Bond, J., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Johnson, D., et al. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.02.002 · Cited by 2,990
Screening for Colorectal Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2008) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-149-9-200811040-00243 · Cited by 1,959
Levin, B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Smith, R. A., Brooks, D., Andrews, K. S., Dash, C., Giardiello, F. M., Glick, S., Levin, T. R., et al. (2008) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/ca.2007.0018 · Cited by 1,801
Quality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies
Rex, D., Cutler, C., Lemmel, G., Rahmani, E., Clark, D., Helper, D., Lehman, G., & Mark, D. (1997) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1016/s0016-5085(97)70214-2 · Cited by 1,553
American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening 2008
Rex, D. K., Johnson, D. A., Anderson, J. C., Schoenfeld, P. S., Burke, C. A., & Inadomi, J. M. (2009) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2009.104 · Cited by 1,401
Polyp Miss Rate Determined by Tandem Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review
van Rijn, J. C., Reitsma, J. B., Stoker, J., Bossuyt, P. M., van Deventer, S. J., & Dekker, E. (2006) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x · Cited by 1,344
Screening and Surveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer and Adenomatous Polyps
Maisonneuve, P., Botteri, E., & Lowenfels, A. B. (2008) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2008.04.039 · Cited by 1,183
Froehlich, F., Wietlisbach, V., Gonvers, J.-J., Burnand, B., & Vader, J.-P. (2005) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(04)02776-2 · Cited by 931
Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia
Harewood, G. C., Sharma, V. K., & de Garmo, P. (2003) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1067/mge.2003.294 · Cited by 724
Cited by
Quality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: exploring explanations and solutions
Adler, J., & Robertson, D. J. (2015) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.365 · Cited by 129
Găină, M.-A., Szalontay, A. S., Ștefănescu, G., Bălan, G. G., Ghiciuc, C. M., Boloș, A., Găină, A.-M., & Ștefănescu, C. (2022) · Journal of Clinical Medicine · doi:10.3390/jcm11061670 · Cited by 44
Metadata
- Authors
- Lebwohl, B., Kastrinos, F., Glick, M., Rosenbaum, A. J., Wang, T., & Neugut, A. I.
- Venue
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1207-1214
- ISSN
- 0016-5107 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2123845707
- Cited by
- 466
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 15.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051
- The paper
- Lebwohl, B., Kastrinos, F., Glick, M., Rosenbaum, A. J., Wang, T., & Neugut, A. I. (2011). The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
