The secondary quality indicator to improve prediction of adenoma miss rate apart from adenoma detection rate
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death
Corley, D. A., Jensen, C. D., Marks, A. R., Zhao, W. K., Lee, J. K., Doubeni, C. A., Zauber, A. G., de Boer, J., Fireman, B. H., Schottinger, J. E., et al. (2014) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1309086 · Cited by 2,270 · see citing works
Concepts in Familial Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand and What Is the Future?
Castells, A., Castellví–Bel, S., & Balaguer, F. (2009) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.06.015 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhao, S., Wang, S., Pan, P., Xia, T., Chang, X., Yang, X., Guo, L., Meng, Q., Yang, F., Qian, W., et al. (2019) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.01.260 · Cited by 660 · see citing works
Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy
Introzzi, L., Zonca, J., Cabitza, F., Cherubini, P., & Reverberi, C. (2024) · Digestive and Liver Disease · doi:10.1016/j.dld.2023.10.018 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
- 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