Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, ISSN: 0016-5107, Vol: 75, Issue: 3, Page: 576-582
2012
- 96Citations
- 45Captures
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations96
- Citation Indexes92
- 92
- CrossRef79
- Policy Citations3
- Policy Citation3
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures45
- Readers45
- 45
- Mentions1
- News Mentions1
- News1
Most Recent News
Sedation Effect on the Global Quality Colonoscopy
STUDY INFORMATION OFFICIAL TITLE: Sedation Effect on the Global Quality Colonoscopy CURRENT STATUS: Unknown status: 30 Days STUDY TYPE: Observational [Patient Registry] SPONSOR AGENCY:Hospital San
Article Description
The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is one of the main quality measures for colonoscopy, but it is burdensome to calculate and is not amenable to claims-based reporting. To validate the correlation between polypectomy rates (PRs) and ADRs by using a large group of endoscopists. Retrospective study. Community and academic endoscopy units in the United States. Sixty endoscopists and their patients. Proportion of patients with any adenoma and any polyp removed; correlation between ADRs and PRs. In total, 14,341 screening colonoscopies were included, and there was high correlation between endoscopists' PRs and ADRs in men ( r s =.91, P <.0001) and women (r s =.91, P <.0001). Endoscopists with PRs in the highest quartile had a significantly higher ADR than did those in the lowest quartile in men (44.6% vs 19.4%, P <.0001) and women (33.6% vs 11.6%, P <.0001). Endoscopists in the top polypectomy quartile also found more advanced adenomas than did endoscopists in the bottom quartile (men: 9.6% vs 4.6%, P =.0006; women: 6.3% vs 3.0%, P =.01). Benchmark PRs of 40% and 30% correlated with ADRs greater than 25% and 15% for men and women, respectively. Retrospective analysis of a subset of a national endoscopic database. Endoscopists' PRs correlate well with their ADRs. Given its clinical relevance, its simplicity, and the ease with which it can be incorporated into claims-based reporting programs, the PR may become an important quality measure.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016510711025429; http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gie.2011.12.012; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84863181532&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22341104; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016510711025429; http://www.giejournal.org/article/S0016-5107(11)02542-9/abstract; https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/getSharedSiteSession?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giejournal.org%2Farticle%2FS0016-5107%2811%2902542-9%2Fabstract&rc=0&code=ymge-site; http://acw.elsevier.com/SSOCore?return=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSsoCookie%3FredirectUri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.giejournal.org%252Faction%252FconsumeSharedSessionAction%253FJSESSIONID%253DaaakT4OJGZXdn8qRJMnxv%2526MAID%253D03ybXJ7VjE7LaBL1Y5Tbqw%25253D%25253D%2526SERVER%253DWZ6myaEXBLGZpQFlLdJmhw%25253D%25253D%2526ORIGIN%253D448954765%2526RD%253DRD; http://acw.elsevier.com/SSOCore/?return=https%3A%2F%2Fsecure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com%2Faction%2FconsumeSsoCookie%3FredirectUri%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.giejournal.org%252Faction%252FconsumeSharedSessionAction%253FJSESSIONID%253DaaakT4OJGZXdn8qRJMnxv%2526MAID%253D03ybXJ7VjE7LaBL1Y5Tbqw%25253D%25253D%2526SERVER%253DWZ6myaEXBLGZpQFlLdJmhw%25253D%25253D%2526ORIGIN%253D448954765%2526RD%253DRD; https://secure.jbs.elsevierhealth.com/action/consumeSsoCookie?redirectUri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.giejournal.org%2Faction%2FconsumeSharedSessionAction%3FJSESSIONID%3DaaakT4OJGZXdn8qRJMnxv%26MAID%3D03ybXJ7VjE7LaBL1Y5Tbqw%253D%253D%26SERVER%3DWZ6myaEXBLGZpQFlLdJmhw%253D%253D%26ORIGIN%3D448954765%26RD%3DRD&acw=&utt=; http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0016510711025429
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know