Dataset Information

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.

Methods

A literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database. The primary outcome of interest was ADR. Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate, advanced adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated adenoma detection rate, withdrawal time, and cecal intubation rate. Cochrane Revman 5.3 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results

A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for the analysis of primary outcomes. There were 78,355 subjects (45.42% male) with a mean age of 59.52 years. There was a significant improvement in ADR after any form of feedback compared to no feedback: 36.18% vs. 26.75%; pooled odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.37-1.66; P<0.001. There was a substantial heterogeneity (I²=82%). ADR improved in both active or passive feedback, irrespective of whether endoscopists knew about being monitored for their performance or not.

Conclusions

Monitoring and providing feedback to endoscopists in any form leads to improvement in ADR. Feedback is an easy and effective way of improving the ADR of endoscopists, especially in those not achieving the recommended benchmarks.

SUBMITTER: Boregowda U

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7903562 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Boregowda Umesha U Desai Madhav M Nutalapati Venkat V Paleti Swathi S Olyaee Mojtaba M Rastogi Amit A

Annals of gastroenterology 20210127 2

<h4>Background</h4>Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the most important quality indicators of colonoscopy. Monitoring endoscopists and providing feedback has shown to improve ADR. We performed a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis to determine the effect of any form of feedback on ADR.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search for comparative studies that employed any form of feedback to assess the impact on ADR before and after the feedback was done on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochr ...[more]

PMID: 33654362

Similar Datasets

Project description:Current guidelines recommend early repeat colonoscopy when bowel preparation quality is inadequate, defined as inability to detect polyps >5 mm, but no data link specific bowel preparation categories or scores to this definition. Nevertheless, most physicians use a shortened screening/surveillance interval in patients with intermediate-quality preparation. We determined whether different levels of bowel preparation quality are associated with differences in adenoma detection rates (ADRs: proportion of colonoscopies with ?1 adenoma) to help guide decisions regarding early repeat colonoscopy-with primary focus on intermediate-quality preparation.MEDLINE and Embase were searched for studies with adenoma or polyp detection rate stratified by bowel preparation quality. Preparation quality definitions were standardized on the basis of Aronchick definitions (excellent/good/fair/poor/insufficient), and primary analyses of ADR trichotomized bowel preparation quality: high quality (excellent/good), intermediate quality (fair), and low quality (poor/insufficient). Dichotomized analyses of adequate (excellent/good/fair) vs. inadequate (poor/insufficient) were also performed.Eleven studies met the inclusion criteria. The primary analysis, ADR with intermediate- vs. high-quality preparation, showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.94 (0.80-1.10) and absolute risk difference of -1% (-3%, 2%). ADRs were significantly higher with both intermediate-quality and high-quality preparation vs. low-quality preparation: OR=1.39 (1.08-1.79) and 1.41 (1.21-1.64), with absolute risk increases of 5% for both. ADR and advanced ADR were significantly higher with adequate vs. inadequate preparation: OR=1.30 (1.19-1.42) and 1.30 (1.02-1.67). Studies did not report other relevant outcomes such as total adenomas per colonoscopy.ADR is not significantly different with intermediate-quality vs. high-quality bowel preparation. Our results confirm the need for early repeat colonoscopy with low-quality bowel preparation, but suggest that patients with intermediate/fair preparation quality may be followed up at standard guideline-recommended surveillance intervals without significantly affecting quality as measured by ADR.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple infection outbreaks have been linked to contaminated duodenoscopes worldwide. However, the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes varies highly amongst published studies testing this subject. We aimed to estimate the contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes for endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography (ERCP) based on currently available data.MethodsWe searched the PubMed and Embase databases from January 1, 2010 until March 10, 2020, for citations investigating contamination rates of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Studies not assessing other types of endoscopes than duodenoscopes were excluded from the analysis. Study eligibility and data extraction was evaluated by three reviewers independently. A random-effects model (REM) based on the proportion distribution was used to calculate the pooled total contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Subgroup analyses were carried out to assess contamination rates when using different reprocessing methods by comparing single high-level disinfection (HLD) with double HLD and ethylene oxide (EtO) gas sterilization. Additionally, we investigated the contamination rate between studies conducted following an outbreak compared to non-outbreak-initiated studies.FindingsWe identified 15 studies that fulfilled the inclusion, which included 925 contaminated duodenoscopes from 13,112 samples. The calculated total weighted contamination rate was 15.25% ± 0.018 (95% confidence interval [Cl]: 11.74% - 18.75%). The contamination rate after only using HLD was 16.14% ± 0.019 (95% Cl: 12.43% - 19.85%) and after using either dHLD or EtO the contamination rate decreased to 9.20% ± 0.025 (95% Cl: 4.30% - 14.10%). Studies conducted following an outbreak (n=4) showed a 5.72% ± 0.034 (95% Cl: 0.00% - 12.43%) contamination rate, and non-outbreak-initiated studies (n=11) revealed a contamination rate of 21.50% ± 0.031 (95% Cl: 15.35% - 27.64%).InterpretationThis is the first meta-analysis to estimate the contamination rate of patient-ready duodenoscopes used for ERCP. Based on the available literature, our analysis demonstrates that there is a 15.25% contamination rate of reprocessed patient-ready duodenoscopes. Additionally, the analysis indicates that dHLD and EtO reprocessing methods are superior to single HLD but still not efficient in regards to cleaning the duodenoscopes properly. Furthermore, studies conducted following an outbreak did not entail a higher contamination rate compared to non-outbreak-initiated studies.FundingThe authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Dataset Information

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure