Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,010

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 and the Risk of Interval Cancer

Kaminski, Michal F., Regula, Jaroslaw, Kraszewska, Ewa, Polkowski, Marcin, Wojciechowska, Urszula, Didkowska, Joanna, Zwierko, Maria, Rupinski, Maciej, Nowacki, Marek P., Butruk, Eugeniusz·2010·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. METHODS: We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. RESULTS: A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy.

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 · 10.1056/nejmoa0907667

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

Cited by

See all 2,010

Metadata

Authors
Kaminski, M. F., Regula, J., Kraszewska, E., Polkowski, M., Wojciechowska, U., Didkowska, J., Zwierko, M., Rupinski, M., Nowacki, M. P., & Butruk, E.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2010-05-13
Volume
362
Issue
19
Pages
1795-1803
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2151255896
Cited by
2,010
References
1
FWCI
49.43
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 and the Risk of Interval Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejmoa0907667
The paper
Kaminski, M. F., Regula, J., Kraszewska, E., Polkowski, M., Wojciechowska, U., Didkowska, J., Zwierko, M., Rupinski, M., Nowacki, M. P., & Butruk, E. (2010). Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy and the Risk of Interval Cancer. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0907667

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.