The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK
Abstract
Objective: To perform a comprehensive audit of all colonoscopy undertaken in the UK over a 2-week period. Design: Multi-centre survey. All adult (≥16 years of age) colonoscopies that took place in participating National Health Service hospitals between 28 February 2011 and 11 March 2011 were included. Results: Data on 20 085 colonoscopies and 2681 colonoscopists were collected from 302 units. A validation exercise indicated that data were collected on over 94% of all procedures performed nationally. The unadjusted caecal intubation rate (CIR) was 92.3%. When adjusted for impassable strictures and poor bowel preparation the CIR was 95.8%. The polyp detection rate was 32.1%. The polyp detection rate for larger polyps (≥10mm diameter) was 11.7%. 92.3% of resected polyps were retrieved. 90.2% of procedures achieved acceptable levels of patient comfort. A total of eight perforations and 52 significant haemorrhages were reported. Eight patients underwent surgery as a consequence of a complication. Conclusions: This is the first national audit of colonoscopy that has successfully captured the majority of adult colonoscopies performed across an entire nation during a defined time period. The data confirm that there has been a significant improvement in the performance of colonoscopy in the UK since the last study reported seven years ago (CIR 76.9%) and that performance is above the required national standards.
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
Cited by
Rutter, M. D., East, J., Rees, C. J., Cripps, N., Docherty, J., Dolwani, S., Kaye, P. V., Monahan, K. J., Novelli, M. R., Plumb, A., et al. (2020) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2019-319858 · Cited by 380
Kaminski, M. F., Thomas‐Gibson, S., Bugajski, M., Bretthauer, M., Rees, C. J., Dekker, E., Hoff, G., Jover, R., Suchanek, S., Ferlitsch, M., et al. (2017) · United European Gastroenterology Journal · doi:10.1177/2050640617700014 · Cited by 346
Self-citationAtkin, W., Cross, A. J., Kralj-Hans, I., MacRae, E., Piggott, C., Pearson, S., Wooldrage, K., Brown, J., Lucas, F., Prendergast, A., et al. (2019) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta23010 · Cited by 129
Metadata
- Authors
- Gavin, D. R., Valori, R. M., Anderson, J. T., Donnelly, M. T., Williams, J. G., & Swarbrick, E. T.
- Venue
- Gut
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012-06-01
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 242-249
- ISSN
- 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3288
- OpenAlex
- W2166643180
- Cited by
- 281
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 9.66
- 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: The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301848
- The paper
- Gavin, D. R., Valori, R. M., Anderson, J. T., Donnelly, M. T., Williams, J. G., & Swarbrick, E. T. (2013). The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301848
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.