Year 2022 / Volume 114 / Number 6
Editorial
Colonoscopy — When quality matters

314-316

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8942/2022

José Díaz-Tasende,

Abstract
Colonoscopy technical quality is a primary determinant of clinical outcome. Unfortunately, there is enough evidence available for significant variability in endoscopists’ performance. An assessment of the factors determining these differences will be crucial for designing measures to ensure effectiveness and safety in these procedures.
Share Button
New comment
Comments

09/06/2022 22:58:09
Excelente


References
1.- Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(19):1795-1803. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.
2.- Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017;5(3):309-334. doi:10.1177/2050640617700014.
3.- Shaukat A, Kahi CJ, Burke CA, et al. ACG Clinical Guidelines: Colorectal Cancer Screening 2021. Am J Gastroenterol. 2021;116(3):458-479. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000001122.
4.- Zagari RM, Frazzoni L, Fuccio L, et al. Adherence to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Performance Measures for Upper and Lower Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Nationwide Survey From the Italian Society of Digestive Endoscopy. Front Med (Lausanne). 2022;9:868449. Published 2022 Apr 6. doi:10.3389/fmed.2022.868449.
5.- Ferreira AO, Costa-Santos MP, Gomes C, et al. Participation in clinical trials increases the detection of pre-malignant lesions during colonoscopy [published online ahead of print, 2021 Oct 5]. Rev Esp Enferm Dig. 2021;10.17235/reed.2021.8104/2021. doi:10.17235/reed.2021.8104/2021.
6.- Wieszczy P, Bugajski M, Januszewicz W, et al. Comparison of Quality Measures for Detection of Neoplasia at Screening Colonoscopy [published online ahead of print, 2022 Mar 24]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;S1542-3565(22)00298-1. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2022.03.023.
7.- Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1298-1306. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.
8.- Shaukat A, Shyne M, Mandel JS, et al. Colonoscopy With Polypectomy Reduces Long-Term Incidence of Colorectal Cancer in Both Men and Women: Extended Results From the Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. Gastroenterology. 2021;160(4):1397-1399.e3. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.11.014.
9.- Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(7):1696-1700. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05827.x.
10.- Zhao S, Yang X, Wang S, et al. Impact of 9-Minute Withdrawal Time on the Adenoma Detection Rate: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(2):e168-e181. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2020.11.019.
11.- Desai M, Bilal M, Hamade N, et al. Increasing adenoma detection rates in the right side of the colon comparing retroflexion with a second forward view: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019;89(3):453-459.e3. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2018.09.006.
12.- Williet N, Tournier Q, Vernet C, et al. Effect of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Endoscopy. 2018;50(9):846-860. doi:10.1055/a-0577-3500 .
13.- Brown SR, Baraza W, Din S, Riley S. Chromoscopy versus conventional endoscopy for the detection of polyps in the colon and rectum. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4(4):CD006439. Published 2016 Apr 7. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006439.pub4.
14.- Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, Ragunath K. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2011;43(6):499-505. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1256207.
15.- Spada C, Koulaouzidis A, Hassan C, et al. Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(6):3388. Published 2022 Mar 13. doi:10.3390/ijerph19063388.
16.- McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):267-277. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015.
17.- Sedgwick P, Greenwood N. Understanding the Hawthorne effect. BMJ. 2015;351:h4672. Published 2015 Sep 4. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4672.
18.- Jover R, Zapater P, Bujanda L, et al. Endoscopist characteristics that influence the quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2016;48(3):241-247. doi:10.1055/s-0042-100185.
19.- Nielsen AB, Nielsen OH, Hendel J. Impact of feedback and monitoring on colonoscopy withdrawal times and polyp detection rates. BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2017;4(1):e000142. Published 2017 Jun 1. doi:10.1136/bmjgast-2017-000142.
20.- Gurudu SR, Boroff ES, Crowell MD, et al. Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rates: Outcomes of quality improvement program. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;33(3):645-649. doi:10.1111/jgh.13984.
21.- West J, Wright J, Tuffnell D, Jankowicz D, West R. Do clinical trials improve quality of care? A comparison of clinical processes and outcomes in patients in a clinical trial and similar patients outside a trial where both groups are managed according to a strict protocol. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(3):175-178. doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.011478.
Related articles

Letter

An uncommon colonic polyp

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9160/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Intestinal obstruction due to bariolith impaction

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9084/2022

Letter

Anorectal malignant melanoma, a diagnostic challenge

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9068/2022

Letter

Lead ingestion, medical emergency and action plan

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9048/2022

Letter

Endoscopic findings of radiation ileitis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.9036/2022

Letter

Endoscopic imaging of pneumatosis intestinalis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8972/2022

Digestive Diseases Image

Colonic Kaposi’s sarcoma as the first clinical manifestation of undiagnosed HIV

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8717/2022

Letter

Gastrointestinal lymphoma, a rare endoscopic lesion

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2022.8555/2021

Letter

Cecal MALT lymphoma: a challenging diagnosis

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8526/2021

Letter

Surprises in cecal intubation: foreign bodies in the colon

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2021.8155/2021

Digestive Diseases Image

Phlebosclerotic colitis: an unusual cause of abdominal pain and hematochezia

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.7358/2020

Special Article

Quality indicators in enteroscopy. Enteroscopy procedure

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2020.6946/2020

Case Report

Primary colon mantle lymphoma: a misleading macroscopic appearance!

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6405/2019

Special Article

The quality of abdominal ultrasound: a much-needed consensus

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.6177/2019

Digestive Diseases Image

Colorectal penetration by two intrauterine devices

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2019.5974/2018

Editorial

Colorectal cancer screening and survival

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5870/2018

Letter

Bacterial endogenous endophthalmitis after colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5658/2018

Review

Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5408/2017

Letter to the Editor

A rare complication after colonoscopy: a splenic rupture

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5362/2017

Letter to the Editor

Acute appendicitis after a colonic endoscopic submucosal resection

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2018.5307/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

Contribution of the virtual colonoscopy in a case of intestinal intussusception

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5261/2017

Digestive Diseases Image

A bull horn fragment found on colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.5020/2017

Letter to the Editor

Propofol sedation Quality and safety. Failure mode and effects analysis.

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4976/2017

Editorial

Issue pending: minimizing anxiety before colonoscopy

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2016.4756/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Intrauterine device in the rectal cavity

Original

Coping with celiac disease: how heavy is the burden for caregivers?

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4518/2016

Letter to the Editor

Primary chancre in the rectum: an underdiagnosed cause of rectal ulcer

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2017.4457/2016

Digestive Diseases Image

Pneumatosis cystoides intestinalis

Letter to the Editor

Splenic rupture after colorectal cancer screening

DOI: 10.17235/reed.2015.3714/2015

Citation tools
Díaz-Tasende J. Colonoscopy — When quality matters. 8942/2022


Download to a citation manager

Download the citation for this article by clicking on one of the following citation managers:

Metrics
This article has received 622 visits.
This article has been downloaded 315 times.

Statistics from Dimensions


Statistics from Plum Analytics

Publication history

Received: 18/05/2022

Accepted: 19/05/2022

Online First: 31/05/2022

Published: 07/06/2022

Article Online First time: 13 days

Article editing time: 20 days


Share
This article hasn't been rated yet.
Reader rating:
Valora este artículo:




Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva
The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology is the official organ of the Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva, the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva and the Asociación Española de Ecografía Digestiva
Cookie policy Privacy Policy Legal Notice © Copyright 2023 y Creative Commons. The Spanish Journal of Gastroenterology