Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: A prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from12 134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3)

Gut

Volumn 62, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 236-241

  Adler, Andreas ^a   Wegscheider, Karl ^b   Lieberman, David ^c   Aminalai, Alireza ^d   Aschenbeck, Jens ^d   Drossel, Rolf ^d   Mayr, Michael ^d   Mroß, Michael ^d   Scheel, Mathias ^d   Schröder, Andreas ^d   Gerber, Katharina ^b   Stange, Gabriela ^a   Roll, Stephanie ^a   Gauger, Ulrich ^e   Wiedenmann, Bertram ^a   Altenhofen, Lutz ^f   Rosch, Thomas ^b  

^a CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER HAMBURG EPPENDORF   (Germany)

^c PORTLAND VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^d Private Practice in Gastroenterology   (Germany)

^e Berlin Statistical Office   (Germany)

^f Central Research Institute of Ambulatory Health Care   (Germany)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADENOMA DETECTION RATE; ADULT; AGE; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COLON ADENOMA; COLONOSCOPE; COLONOSCOPY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; GERMANY; HUMAN; INTESTINE PREPARATION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCREENING COLONOSCOPY; SEX;

ADENOMA; AGE FACTORS; AGED; ANTI-INFLAMMATORY AGENTS, NON-STEROIDAL; BERLIN; CLINICAL COMPETENCE; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; ENDOSCOPES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 84872089655     PISSN: 00175749     EISSN: 14683288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300167     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Lin-Cooper C, et al. Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after negative screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2008;359:1218-24.
2. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Gerdes H, et al. Risk of colorectal cancer in the families of patients with adenomatous polyps. National Polyp Study Workgroup. N Engl J Med 1996;334:82-7. (Pubitemid 26017934)
3. Segnan N, Patnick S, von Karsa L, eds. European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.
4. Millan MS, Gross P, Manilich E, et al. Adenoma detection rate: the real indicator of quality in colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2008;51:1217-20.
5. Bretagne JF, Ponchon T. Do we need to embrace adenoma detection rate as the main quality control parameter during colonoscopy? Endoscopy 2008;40:523-8. (Pubitemid 351911845)
6. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1795-803.
7. Adler A, Aschenbeck J, Yenerim T, et al. Narrow-band versus white-light high definition television endoscopic imaging for screening colonoscopy: a prospective randomized trial. Gastroenterology 2009;136:410-16.
8. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006;355:2533-41. (Pubitemid 44917501)
9. Simmons DT, Harewood GC, Baron TH, et al. Impact of endoscopist withdrawal speed on polyp yield: implications for optimal colonoscopy withdrawal time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;24:965-71. (Pubitemid 44326377)
10. Benson ME, Reichelderfer M, Said A, et al. Variation in colonoscopic technique and adenoma detection rates at an academic gastroenterology unit. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:166-71.
11. Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008;6:1091-8.
12. Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1892-8.
13. Birkmeyer JD, Sun Y, Wong SL, et al. Hospital volume and late survival after cancer surgery. Ann Surg 2007;245:777-83. (Pubitemid 46684108)
14. Birkmeyer NJ, Goodney PP, Stukel TA, et al. Do cancer centers designated by the National Cancer Institute have better surgical outcomes? Cancer 2005; 103:435-41.
15. Dimick JB, Welch HG, Birkmeyer JD. Surgical mortality as an indicator of -hospital quality: the problem with small sample size. JAMA 2004;292:847-51. (Pubitemid 39079671)
16. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2117-27. (Pubitemid 37464537)
17. Birkmeyer JD, Siewers AE, Finlayson EV, et al. Hospital volume and surgical mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med 2002;346:1128-37. (Pubitemid 34984604)
18. Pal N, Axisa B, Yusof S, et al. Volume and outcome for major upper GI surgery in England. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:353-7.
19. Rodgers M, Jobe BA, O'Rourke RW, et al. Case volume as a predictor of inpatient mortality after esophagectomy. Arch Surg 2007;142:829-39.
20. Freeman ML, Nelson DB, Sherman S, et al. Complications of endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy. N Engl J Med 1996;335:909-18. (Pubitemid 26314443)
21. Loperfido S, Angelini G, Benedetti G, et al. Major early complications from diagnostic and therapeutic ERCP: a prospective multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 1998;48:1-10. (Pubitemid 28337421)
22. Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, et al. Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008;40:625-30.
23. Williams EJ, Taylor S, Fairclough P, et al. Risk factors for complications following ERCP; results of a large-scale, prospective multicenter study. Endoscopy 2007;39:793-801. (Pubitemid 47386828)
24. Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, et al. Bleeding perforation after outpatient colonoscopy their risk factors usual clinical practice. Gastroenterol 2008;135:1899-906.
25. Marinopoulos SS, Dorman T, Ratanawongsa N, et al. Effectiveness of Continuing Medical Education. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 149 (Prepared by the Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, under Contract No. 290-02-0018.) AHRQ Publication No. 07-E006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2007.
26. Davis D, O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, et al. Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes? JAMA 1999;282:867-74. (Pubitemid 29408939)
27. Aminalai A, Rösch T, Aschenbeck J, et al. Live Image Processing does not increase adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a randomized comparison between FICE and conventional imaging (Berlin colonoscopy project 5, BECOP-5). Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:2383-8.
28. Pohl J, Lotterer E, Balzer C, et al. Computed virtual chromoendoscopy versus standard colonoscopy with targeted indigocarmine chromoscopy: a randomised multicentre trial. Gut 2009;58:73-8.
29. Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, et al. High definition colonoscopy vs standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2011;43:499-505.
30. Pellisé M, Fernández-Esparrach G, Cárdenas A, et al. Impact of wide-angle, high-definition endoscopy in the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2008;135:1062-8.
31. Tribonias G, Theodoropoulou A, Konstantinidis K, et al. Comparison of standard versus high-definition, wide-angle colonoscopy for polyp detection: a randomized controlled trial. Colorectal Dis 2010;12:e260-6.
32. Hoffman A, Sar F, Goetz M, et al. High definition colonoscopy combined with i-Scan is superior in the detection of colorectal neoplasias compared with standard video colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Endoscopy 2010;42:827-33.
33. Adler A, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, et al. Latest generation, wide-angle, high-definition colonoscopes increase adenoma detection rate (Berlin colonoscopy project 6, BECOP-6). Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012;10:155-9.