Cited by 87Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGenetic factors in colorectal cancerColorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments

The secondary quality indicator to improve prediction of adenoma miss rate apart from adenoma detection rate

Aniwan, Satimai, Orkoonsawat, Piyachai, Viriyautsahakul, Vichai, Angsuwatcharakon, Phonthep, Pittayanon, Rapat, Wisedopas, Naruemon, Sumdin, Sakolkun, Ponuthai, Yuwadee +3 more·2016·American Journal of Gastroenterology

Abstract

Objectives Adenoma detection rate (ADR) cannot distinguish between endoscopists who detect one adenoma and those who detect ≥2 adenomas. Hypothetically, adenoma miss rate (AMR) may be significant for endoscopists with high ADRs who examine the rest of colon with less care after detecting first polyp. Our objective was to evaluate other quality indicators plus ADR vs. ADR alone in prediction of AMR. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of asymptomatic participants aged 50-75 years who underwent back-to-back screening colonoscopies by four faculty endoscopists. Each round of colonoscopy was performed by two of the endoscopists in a randomized order. During each round of colonoscopy, all detected polyps were removed. The second endoscopist was blinded to the results of the first. The total number of adenomas per positive participant (APP), the total number of adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), the additional adenomas found after the first adenoma per colonoscopy (ADR-Plus), and ADR were calculated for prediction of AMR. Results In all, 200 participants underwent back-to-back colonoscopies. There were no significant differences in ADRs of four endoscopists (44, 50, 54, and 46%). APPs were 1.91, 2.12, 2.19, and 2.43. APCs were 0.84, 1.06, 1.18, and 1.12. ADR-Plus were 0.40, 0.56, 0.64, and 0.66, respectively. AMRs differed significantly between the endoscopists (36, 27, 21, and 13%; P=0.01). There was no correlation between ADR and AMR (r=-0.25; P=0.75). Whereas APP exhibited…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/ajg.2015.440

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Over-alternation bias may contribute to observed increase in misses following detecting the first polyp during a colonoscopy.

    “This tendency may contribute to the observed increase in misses following detecting the first polyp during a colonoscopy [7 , 27-29] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aniwan, S., Orkoonsawat, P., Viriyautsahakul, V., Angsuwatcharakon, P., Pittayanon, R., Wisedopas, N., Sumdin, S., Ponuthai, Y., Wiangngoen, S., Kullavanijaya, P., & Rerknimitr, R.
Affiliations
Chulalongkorn University (TH)
Corresponding author
Rerknimitr, Rungsun
Venue
American Journal of Gastroenterology
Published
2016-05
Volume
111
Issue
5
Pages
723-729
ISSN
0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2262795460
Cited by
87
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
4.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The American Journal of Gastroenterology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Genetic factors in colorectal cancer
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Surgical Treatments
Keywords
adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, colonoscopy quality indicators, colorectal adenoma, polyp detection, endoscopist variability, colorectal cancer screening, quality improvement targets
MeSH terms
Adenoma, Aged, Colonic Neoplasms, Colonoscopy, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diagnostic Errors, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Predictive Value of Tests, Quality Indicators, Health Care

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