Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,401

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy

Rex, Douglas K, Schoenfeld, Philip S, Cohen, Jonathan, Pike, Irving M, Adler, Douglas G, Fennerty, Brian M, Lieb, John G, Park, Walter G, Rizk, Maged K, Sawhney, Mandeep S, Shaheen, Nicholas J, Wani, Sachin, Weinberg, David S·2015·American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

ACG: American College of Gastroenterology; ADR: adenoma detection rate; APC: adenoma per colonoscopy; ASGE: American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; CRC: colorectal cancer; PDR: polyp detection rate Colonoscopy is widely used for the diagnosis and treatment of colon disorders. Properly performed, colonoscopy is generally safe, accurate, and well-tolerated. Visualization of the mucosa of the entire large intestine and distal terminal ileum usually is possible during colonoscopy. Polyps can be removed during colonoscopy, thereby reducing the risk of colon cancer. Colonoscopy is the preferred method to evaluate the colon in most adult patients with large-bowel symptoms, iron deficiency anemia, abnormal results on radiographic studies of the colon, positive results on colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, post-polypectomy and post-cancer resection surveillance, and diagnosis and surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease. In addition, colonoscopy is the most commonly used CRC screening test in the United States (1). Based on 2010 data, over 3.3 million outpatient colonoscopies are performed annually in the United States, with screening and polyp surveillance accounting for half of indications (2). Optimal effectiveness of colonoscopy depends on patient acceptance of the procedure, which depends mostly on acceptance of the bowel preparation (3). Preparation quality affects the completeness of examination, procedure duration, and the need to cancel or repeat procedures at earlier dates than would otherwise be needed (4, 5). Ineffective preparation is a major contributor to costs (6). Meticulous inspection (7, 8) and longer withdrawal times (9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) are associated with higher adenoma detection rates (ADR). A high ADR is essential to rendering recommended intervals (15) between screening and surveillance examinations safe (16, 17). Optimal technique is needed to ensure a high probability of detecting dysplasia when present in inflammatory bowel disease (17, 18, 19, 20, 21). Finally, technical expertise and experience will help prevent adverse events that might offset the benefits of removing neoplastic lesions (22). Recent studies report that colonoscopy is less effective in preventing proximal colon cancer and cancer deaths (ie, colon cancer proximal to the splenic flexure) compared with distal cancer (ie, colon cancer at or distal to the splenic flexure) (23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). Decreased protection against right-sided CRC is likely due to multiple factors. These include missed adenomas or incompletely resected adenomas; suboptimal bowel preparation; precancerous lesions that are endoscopically subtle or difficult to remove, such as sessile serrated polyps and flat and/or depressed adenomas, and differences in tumorigenesis between right-sided and left-sided cancers. Improving prevention of right-sided colon cancer is a major goal of colonoscopy quality programs. Five studies have established that gastroenterologists are more effective than surgeons or primary care physicians at preventing CRC by colonoscopy (27, 29, 30, 31, 32). This most likely reflects higher rates of complete examinations (ie, cecal intubation) (30) and higher rates of adenoma detection among gastroenterologists (33, 34). All endoscopists performing colonoscopy should measure the quality of their colonoscopy. Institutions where endoscopists from multiple specialties are practicing should reasonably expect all endoscopists to participate in the program and achieve recommended quality benchmarks. The quality of health care can be measured by comparing the performance of an individual or a group of individuals with an ideal or benchmark (35). The particular parameter that is being used for comparison is termed a quality indicator. A quality indicator often is reported as a ratio between the incidence of correct performance and the opportunity for correct performance (4) or as the proportion of interventions that achieve a goal (35). can be of the entire health care by a or in that quality performance during the of care ADR and during colonoscopy for the results of the care that the prevention of cancer by colonoscopy and in the incidence of In the American Society for Gastrointestinal College of on in their of quality for colonoscopy The present to quality and quality for performing colonoscopy that associated with in and and in studies studies a of by of the of all such studies by of a is that of would their a of quality is is a might be widely used for quality or quality in the on to the quality of care to patients is by to the in which is performed, of quality in the of The quality on the of the quality indicator as an or a quality are can be difficult to measure in need of large of and and be by factors. In such the to as of The of a indicator on the that with a and such of quality for in a that to be as quality and a of performance for quality indicator. The performance from in the when to a performance when to a

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2014.385

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 1,401

Metadata

Authors
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, B. M., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., Shaheen, N. J., Wani, S., & Weinberg, D. S.
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2015-01
Volume
110
Issue
1
Pages
72-90
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4294536021
Cited by
1,401
References
1
FWCI
63.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/ajg.2014.385
The paper
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, B. M., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., Shaheen, N. J., Wani, S., & Weinberg, D. S. (2015). Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy. American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.385

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.