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
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.
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
Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model
SCHOENFELD, D. (1982) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/69.1.239 · Cited by 3,111
Cited by
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
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
Long-term colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality after lower endoscopy
Nishihara, R., Wu, K., Lochhead, P., Morikawa, T., Liao, X., Qian, Z. R., Inamura, K., Kim, S. A., Kuchiba, A., Yamauchi, M., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1301969 · Cited by 1,483
Wang, P., Berzin, T. M., Glissen Brown, J. R., Bharadwaj, S., Becq, A., Xiao, X., Liu, P., Li, L., Song, Y., Zhang, D., et al. (2019) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2018-317500 · Cited by 865
ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021
Shaukat, A., Kahi, C. J., Burke, C. A., Rabeneck, L., Sauer, B. G., & Rex, D. K. (2021) · American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122 · Cited by 853
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
- Publisher
- Massachusetts Medical Society
- 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
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.
