Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Can polyp detection rate be used prospectively as a marker of adenoma detection rate?
Murchie, Brent; Tandon, Kanwarpreet; Zackria, Shamiq; Wexner, Steven D; O'Rourke, Colin; Castro, Fernando J.
Afiliación
  • Murchie B; Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
  • Tandon K; Department of Internal Medicine, Blake Medical Center, Bradenton, FL, USA.
  • Zackria S; Department of Internal Medicine, Aultman Hospital, Canton, OH, USA.
  • Wexner SD; Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA.
  • O'Rourke C; Quantitative Health Sciences, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH, USA.
  • Castro FJ; Department of Gastroenterology, Digestive Diseases Institute, Cleveland Clinic Florida, 2950 Cleveland Clinic Blvd, Weston, FL, 33331, USA. castrof@ccf.org.
Surg Endosc ; 32(3): 1141-1148, 2018 03.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28812147
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, but its calculation is time-consuming. Polyp detection rate (PDR) has been found to correlate with ADR; however, its use as a quality indicator has been criticized out of concern for endoscopists artificially inflating the PDR. We aim to evaluate whether active monitoring affects PDR.

METHODS:

In March 2015, 14 endoscopists were made aware that their personal PDRs would be tracked monthly as a quality improvement project. Endoscopists received a report of their individual monthly and cumulative PDR, departmental averages, and a benchmark PDR. Following the intervention, data were collected for consecutive patients undergoing average risk screening colonoscopy for six months. PDR, ADR, and adenoma to polyp detection ratio quotient (APDRQ) were compared to a six-month pre-intervention period.

RESULTS:

2203 patients were included in the study. There was no statistically significant difference in PDR when comparing pre- and post-intervention (44 vs. 45%, OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.77-1.36). No statistically significant difference in ADR was observed when comparing pre- and post-intervention (29 vs. 30%, OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.64-1.52). There was no statistically significant difference in APDRQ when comparing pre- and post-intervention (0.67 vs. 0.66, OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.69-1.33).

CONCLUSIONS:

Monthly report cards did not result in a change in PDR or APDRQ. In some environments, PDR can be used as a surrogate marker of ADR, despite endoscopist awareness that PDR is being measured.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Adenoma / Pólipos del Colon / Pólipos Adenomatosos / Detección Precoz del Cáncer Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Surg Endosc Asunto de la revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM / GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Banco de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Adenoma / Pólipos del Colon / Pólipos Adenomatosos / Detección Precoz del Cáncer Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Observational_studies / Prognostic_studies / Risk_factors_studies / Screening_studies Límite: Aged / Female / Humans / Male / Middle aged Idioma: En Revista: Surg Endosc Asunto de la revista: DIAGNOSTICO POR IMAGEM / GASTROENTEROLOGIA Año: 2018 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Estados Unidos