Annals of Colorectal Research

Published by: Kowsar

Quality Metrics and Indicators in Colonoscopy

Halim Bou Daher 1 and Ala I Sharara 1 , *
Authors Information
1 American University of Beirut Medical Center, Department of Internal Medicine, Beirut, Lebanon
Article information
  • Annals of Colorectal Research: December 2018, 6 (4); e84901
  • Published Online: December 4, 2018
  • Article Type: Review Article
  • Received: October 3, 2018
  • Accepted: October 3, 2018
  • DOI: 10.5812/acr.84901

To Cite: Bou Daher H, Sharara A I. Quality Metrics and Indicators in Colonoscopy, Ann Colorectal Res. 2018 ; 6(4):e84901. doi: 10.5812/acr.84901.

Abstract
Copyright © 2018, Annals of Colorectal Research. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Context
2. Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR)
3. Adenoma per Colonoscopy (APC)
4. Proximal Serrated Polyp Detection Rate (PSP-DR)
5. Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate (AADR)
6. Cecal Intubation Rates
7. Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time (WT)
8. Quality of Bowel Preparation
9. Adherence to Surveillance Guidelines
10. Colonoscopy Technique and Maneuvers
11. Conclusions
Footnote
References
  • 1. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM, et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739-50. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2009.104. [PubMed: 19240699].
  • 2. Wilson A, Saunders BP. Position change during colonoscopy: The oldest and best trick in the book. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(3):495-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.1987. [PubMed: 26279350].
  • 3. Anderson JC, Butterly LF. Colonoscopy: Quality indicators. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2015;6. e77. doi: 10.1038/ctg.2015.5. [PubMed: 25716302]. [PubMed Central: PMC4418496].
  • 4. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(1).
  • 5. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(1):72-90. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.385. [PubMed: 25448873].
  • 6. Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: Recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(6):1296-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05812.x. [PubMed: 12094842].
  • 7. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, Zhao WK, Lee JK, Doubeni CA, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1298-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086. [PubMed: 24693890]. [PubMed Central: PMC4036494].
  • 8. Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Colonoscopy quality: Metrics and implementation. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42(3):599-618. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.05.005. [PubMed: 23931862]. [PubMed Central: PMC3741615].
  • 9. Meester RG, Doubeni CA, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Jensen CD, van der Meulen MP, Levin TR, et al. Variation in adenoma detection rate and the lifetime benefits and cost of colorectal cancer screening: A microsimulation model. JAMA. 2015;313(23):2349-58. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.6251. [PubMed: 26080339]. [PubMed Central: PMC4631392].
  • 10. Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS, Mears R, Johnson CS. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(6):925-31. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.012. [PubMed: 23472996].
  • 11. Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM, Ciolino JD, Manka M, O'Leary KJ, et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(8):1134-9. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.103. [PubMed: 25869388].
  • 12. Abdul-Baki H, Schoen RE, Dean K, Rose S, Leffler DA, Kuganeswaran E, et al. Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(4):676-82. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.058. [PubMed: 26385276]. [PubMed Central: PMC4575767].
  • 13. Lieberman D, Mascarenhas R. Adenoma detection rate: In search of quality improvement, not just measurement. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(4):683-5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.020. [PubMed: 26385277].
  • 14. Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A, Jacobson BC. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(3):376-80. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.023. [PubMed: 23211748].
  • 15. Adler A, Wegscheider K, Lieberman D, Aminalai A, Aschenbeck J, Drossel R, et al. Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: A prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12,134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3). Gut. 2013;62(2):236-41. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300167. [PubMed: 22442161].
  • 16. Hilsden RJ, Dube C, Heitman SJ, Bridges R, McGregor SE, Rostom A. The association of colonoscopy quality indicators with the detection of screen-relevant lesions, adverse events, and postcolonoscopy cancers in an asymptomatic Canadian colorectal cancer screening population. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(5):887-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.03.1914. [PubMed: 25952092].
  • 17. Skinner CS, Gupta S, Halm EA, Wright S, McCallister K, Bishop W, et al. Development of the Parkland-UT Southwestern Colonoscopy Reporting System (CoRS) for evidence-based colon cancer surveillance recommendations. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(2):402-6. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv081. [PubMed: 26254481]. [PubMed Central: PMC5009919].
  • 18. Wang HS, Pisegna J, Modi R, Liang LJ, Atia M, Nguyen M, et al. Adenoma detection rate is necessary but insufficient for distinguishing high versus low endoscopist performance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(1):71-8. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.08.038. [PubMed: 23261096].
  • 19. Gessl I, Waldmann E, Penz D, Majcher B, Dokladanska A, Hinterberger A, et al. Evaluation of adenomas per colonoscopy and adenomas per positive participant as new quality parameters in screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.013. [PubMed: 30138613].
  • 20. Anderson JC. Pathogenesis and management of serrated polyps: Current status and future directions. Gut Liver. 2014;8(6):582-9. doi: 10.5009/gnl14248. [PubMed: 25368744]. [PubMed Central: PMC4215442].
  • 21. Kahi CJ, Li X, Eckert GJ, Rex DK. High colonoscopic prevalence of proximal colon serrated polyps in average-risk men and women. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(3):515-20. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.021. [PubMed: 22018551].
  • 22. Payne SR, Church TR, Wandell M, Rosch T, Osborn N, Snover D, et al. Endoscopic detection of proximal serrated lesions and pathologic identification of sessile serrated adenomas/polyps vary on the basis of center. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(7):1119-26. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.034. [PubMed: 24333512].
  • 23. Occhipinti P, Saettone S, Cristina S, Ridola L, Hassan C. Correlation between adenoma and serrated lesion detection rates in an unselected outpatient population. Dig Liver Dis. 2015;47(6):508-11. doi: 10.1016/j.dld.2015.01.003. [PubMed: 25659823].
  • 24. I Jspeert JE , van Doorn SC, van der Brug YM, Bastiaansen BA, Fockens P, Dekker E. The proximal serrated polyp detection rate is an easy-to-measure proxy for the detection rate of clinically relevant serrated polyps. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(5):870-7. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.02.044. [PubMed: 25935704].
  • 25. Brenner H, Hoffmeister M, Arndt V, Stegmaier C, Altenhofen L, Haug U. Protection from right- and left-sided colorectal neoplasms after colonoscopy: Population-based study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010;102(2):89-95. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp436. [PubMed: 20042716].
  • 26. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Urbach DR, Rabeneck L. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(1):1-8. [PubMed: 19075198].
  • 27. Lakoff J, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Risk of developing proximal versus distal colorectal cancer after a negative colonoscopy: A population-based study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008;6(10):1117-21. quiz 1064. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2008.05.016. [PubMed: 18691942].
  • 28. Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, Paszat LF, Saskin R, Rabeneck L. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(1):65-72. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2010.09.006. [PubMed: 20854818].
  • 29. Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, Moss SM, Goddard AF, Chilton A, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: Experience from the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Gut. 2012;61(7):1050-7. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300651. [PubMed: 21940723].
  • 30. Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, Lederle FA, Kim AS, Rank JM, et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(4):952-7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.06.044. [PubMed: 26164494].
  • 31. Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK, Glomsaker T, de Lange T, Sandvei P, et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy. 2012;44(5):476-81. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1306898. [PubMed: 22531983].
  • 32. Taber A, Romagnuolo J. Effect of simply recording colonoscopy withdrawal time on polyp and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(4):782-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2009.12.008. [PubMed: 20363418].
  • 33. Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, Ngo LH, Lewis JM, Chuttani R, et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(6):1892-8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.024. [PubMed: 18835390].
  • 34. Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, Weiss JE, Goodrich M, Onega TL, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: Results from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(3):417-26. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.442. [PubMed: 24394752]. [PubMed Central: PMC4082336].
  • 35. Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, Wright KC, Nickerson C, Moss SM, et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: Evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):20-6. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325803. [PubMed: 23254403].
  • 36. Yun GY, Eun HS, Kim JS, Joo JS, Kang SH, Moon HS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal time and adenoma detection in the right colon. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(35). e12113. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012113. [PubMed: 30170441].
  • 37. Johnson DA, Barkun AN, Cohen LB, Dominitz JA, Kaltenbach T, Martel M, et al. Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: Recommendations from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(10):1528-45. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.272. [PubMed: 25223578].
  • 38. Sharara AI, Abou Mrad RR. The modern bowel preparation in colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am. 2013;42(3):577-98. doi: 10.1016/j.gtc.2013.05.010. [PubMed: 23931861].
  • 39. Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, Rosenbaum AJ, Wang T, Neugut AI. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(6):1207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. [PubMed: 21481857]. [PubMed Central: PMC3106145].
  • 40. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(7):1696-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05827.x. [PubMed: 12135020].
  • 41. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003;58(1):76-9. doi: 10.1067/mge.2003.294. [PubMed: 12838225].
  • 42. Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: Systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(11):1714-23; quiz 1724. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.232. [PubMed: 25135006]. [PubMed Central: PMC4423726].
  • 43. Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM, Goodrich M, Weiss JE. Impact of fair bowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: Data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(3):463-70. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.03.021. [PubMed: 24818550]. [PubMed Central: PMC4134990].
  • 44. Rai T, Navaneethan U, Gohel T, Podugu A, Thota PN, Kiran RP, et al. Effect of quality of bowel preparation on quality indicators of adenoma detection rates and colonoscopy completion rates. Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2016;4(2):148-53. doi: 10.1093/gastro/gov002. [PubMed: 25680361]. [PubMed Central: PMC4863185].
  • 45. Shayto R, Hanna K, Chalhoub JM, Harb AH, Sharara AI. Sa2027 fecacrit: Derivation and planned validation of a novel and objective tool for the evaluation of high quality bowel preparation. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(4). S433. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(16)31504-9.
  • 46. Menees SB, Kim HM, Elliott EE, Mickevicius JL, Graustein BB, Schoenfeld PS. The impact of fair colonoscopy preparation on colonoscopy use and adenoma miss rates in patients undergoing outpatient colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(3):510-6. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.03.1334. [PubMed: 23642491]. [PubMed Central: PMC3840536].
  • 47. Aoun E, Abdul-Baki H, Azar C, Mourad F, Barada K, Berro Z, et al. A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005;62(2):213-8. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(05)00371-8. [PubMed: 16046981].
  • 48. Parra-Blanco A, Ruiz A, Alvarez-Lobos M, Amoros A, Gana JC, Ibanez P, et al. Achieving the best bowel preparation for colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(47):17709-26. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i47.17709. [PubMed: 25548470]. [PubMed Central: PMC4273122].
  • 49. Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC, Harrison ME, Leighton JA, Crowell MD. Increased adenoma detection rate with system-wide implementation of a split-dose preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(3):603-608. e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.04.456. [PubMed: 22732876].
  • 50. Sharara AI, El Reda ZD, Harb AH, Abou Fadel CG, Sarkis FS, Chalhoub JM, et al. The burden of bowel preparations in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy. United European Gastroenterol J. 2016;4(2):314-8. doi: 10.1177/2050640615594550. [PubMed: 27087962]. [PubMed Central: PMC4804361].
  • 51. Sharara AI, El-Halabi MM, Abou Fadel CG, Sarkis FS. Sugar-free menthol candy drops improve the palatability and bowel cleansing effect of polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78(6):886-91. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.05.015. [PubMed: 23769143].
  • 52. Sharara AI, Harb AH, Sarkis FS, Chalhoub JM, Badreddine R, Mourad FH, et al. Split-dose menthol-enhanced PEG vs PEG-ascorbic acid for colonoscopy preparation. World J Gastroenterol. 2015;21(6):1938-44. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i6.1938. [PubMed: 25684963]. [PubMed Central: PMC4323474].
  • 53. Liu X, Luo H, Zhang L, Leung FW, Liu Z, Wang X, et al. Telephone-based re-education on the day before colonoscopy improves the quality of bowel preparation and the polyp detection rate: A prospective, colonoscopist-blinded, randomised, controlled study. Gut. 2014;63(1):125-30. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-304292. [PubMed: 23503044].
  • 54. Lorenzo-Zuniga V, Moreno de Vega V, Marin I, Barbera M, Boix J. Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using a smart phone application: A randomized trial. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(5):590-5. doi: 10.1111/den.12467. [PubMed: 25708251].
  • 55. Sharara AI, El Reda ZD, Mourad FH, Sarkis FS, Sharara A, Chalhoub JM, et al. The effectiveness of a customized mobile application in colonoscopy preparation: A randomized controlled trial. United European Gastroenterol J. 2015;2(Suppl 1). A188.
  • 56. Cho J, Lee S, Shin JA, Kim JH, Lee HS. The impact of patient education with a smartphone application on the quality of bowel preparation for screening colonoscopy. Clin Endosc. 2017;50(5):479-85. doi: 10.5946/ce.2017.025. [PubMed: 28669148]. [PubMed Central: PMC5642069].
  • 57. Walter B, Klare P, Strehle K, Aschenbeck J, Ludwig L, Dikopoulos N, et al. Improving the quality and acceptance of colonoscopy preparation by reinforced patient education with short message service: Results from a randomized, multicenter study (PERICLES-II). Gastrointest Endosc. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.08.014. [PubMed: 30138612].
  • 58. Johnson MR, Grubber J, Grambow SC, Maciejewski ML, Dunn-Thomas T, Provenzale D, et al. Physician non-adherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in the veterans affairs healthcare system. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(4):938-51. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.06.026. [PubMed: 26122143].
  • 59. Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S, Anastassiades C, Judd S, Urganus A, et al. The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(2):148-54. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2013.243. [PubMed: 24496417]. [PubMed Central: PMC4114303].
  • 60. Harb A, Sarkis F, Habib R, Mourad F, Masri O, Badreddine R, et al. Bowel preparation scales: When glasses become more important than the view. Am J Gastroenterol. New York, USA. Nature Publishing Group; 2014. p. S210-1.
  • 61. Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR, Ho SB, Shah NK, Wetzel L, et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(1):128-34. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.03.003. [PubMed: 21531410].
  • 62. Rex DK. Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;51(1):33-6. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5107(00)70383-X. [PubMed: 10625792].
  • 63. Ou G, Kim E, Lakzadeh P, Tong J, Enns R, Ramji A, et al. A randomized controlled trial assessing the effect of prescribed patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal on adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(2):277-83. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.032. [PubMed: 24629419].
  • 64. East JE, Bassett P, Arebi N, Thomas-Gibson S, Guenther T, Saunders BP. Dynamic patient position changes during colonoscope withdrawal increase adenoma detection: A randomized, crossover trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(3):456-63. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.07.046. [PubMed: 20950801].
  • 65. Ball AJ, Johal SS, Riley SA. Position change during colonoscope withdrawal increases polyp and adenoma detection in the right but not in the left side of the colon: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(3):488-94. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.035. [PubMed: 25910661].
  • 66. Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: An observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(2):246-52. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.04.005. [PubMed: 21679946].
  • 67. Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG, Coumaros D, Bauret P, Potier P, et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: A prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy. 2008;40(4):284-90. doi: 10.1055/s-2007-995618. [PubMed: 18389446].
  • 68. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, Rahmani EY, Clark DW, Helper DJ, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(1):24-8. doi: 10.1016/S0016-5085(97)70214-2. [PubMed: 8978338].
  • 69. Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T, Chen CH, Sayuk GS, Davidson N, et al. Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: A comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(3):415-22. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2015.21. [PubMed: 25732415]. [PubMed Central: PMC4535185].
  • 70. Omata F, Ohde S, Deshpande GA, Kobayashi D, Masuda K, Fukui T. Image-enhanced, chromo, and cap-assisted colonoscopy for improving adenoma/neoplasia detection rate: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2014;49(2):222-37. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2013.863964. [PubMed: 24328858].
  • 71. Leung JW, Ransibrahmanakul K, Toomsen L, Mann SK, Siao-Salera R, Leung FW. The water method combined with chromoendoscopy enhances adenoma detection. J Interv Gastroenterol. 2011;1(2):53-8. doi: 10.4161/jig.1.2.16827. [PubMed: 21776426]. [PubMed Central: PMC3136854].
  • 72. Ng SC, Tsoi KK, Hirai HW, Lee YT, Wu JC, Sung JJ, et al. The efficacy of cap-assisted colonoscopy in polyp detection and cecal intubation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(8):1165-73. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.135. [PubMed: 22664471].
  • 73. Bond A, Sarkar S. New technologies and techniques to improve adenoma detection in colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7(10):969-80. doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i10.969. [PubMed: 26265990]. [PubMed Central: PMC4530330].
  • 74. Floer M, Biecker E, Fitzlaff R, Roming H, Ameis D, Heinecke A, et al. Higher adenoma detection rates with endocuff-assisted colonoscopy - a randomized controlled multicenter trial. PLoS One. 2014;9(12). e114267. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114267. [PubMed: 25470133]. [PubMed Central: PMC4255000].
Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .
Readers' Comments