Suppr超能文献

排除标准对医生腺瘤检出率的影响。

The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate.

作者信息

Marcondes Felippe O, Dean Katie M, Schoen Robert E, Leffler Daniel A, Rose Sherri, Morris Michele, Mehrotra Ateev

机构信息

The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas.

Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):668-75. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.056.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a validated and widely used measure of colonoscopy quality. There is uncertainty in the published literature as to which colonoscopy examinations should be excluded when measuring a physician's ADR.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of varying the colonoscopy exclusion criteria on physician ADR.

DESIGN

We applied different exclusion criteria used in 30 previous studies to a dataset of endoscopy and pathology reports. Under each exclusion criterion, we calculated physician ADR.

SETTING

A private practice colonoscopy center affiliated with the University of Illinois College of Medicine.

PATIENTS

Data on 20,040 colonoscopy examinations performed by 11 gastroenterologists from July 2009 to May 2013 and associated pathology notes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

ADRs across all colonoscopy examinations, each physician's ADR, and ADR ranking.

RESULTS

There were 28 different exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Each study used a different combination of these exclusion criteria. The proportion of all colonoscopy examinations in the dataset excluded under these combinations of exclusion criteria ranged from 0% to 92.2%. The mean ADR across all colonoscopy examinations was 39.1%. The change in mean ADR after applying the 28 exclusion criteria ranged from -5.5 to +3.0 percentage points. However, the exclusion criteria affected each physician's ADR relatively equally, and therefore physicians' rankings via the ADR were stable.

LIMITATIONS

ADR assessment was limited to a single private endoscopy center.

CONCLUSION

There is wide variation in the exclusion criteria used when measuring the ADR. Although these exclusion criteria can affect overall ADRs, the relative rankings of physicians by ADR were stable. A consensus definition of which exclusion criteria are applied when measuring ADR is needed.

摘要

背景

腺瘤检出率(ADR)是一种经过验证且广泛应用的结肠镜检查质量衡量指标。在已发表的文献中,对于在测量医生的ADR时应排除哪些结肠镜检查存在不确定性。

目的

探讨改变结肠镜检查排除标准对医生ADR的影响。

设计

我们将之前30项研究中使用的不同排除标准应用于一个内镜检查和病理报告数据集。在每个排除标准下,我们计算医生的ADR。

设置

一家隶属于伊利诺伊大学医学院的私人执业结肠镜检查中心。

患者

2009年7月至2013年5月11位胃肠病学家进行的20040例结肠镜检查数据及相关病理记录。

主要观察指标

所有结肠镜检查的ADR、每位医生的ADR以及ADR排名。

结果

在测量ADR时使用了28种不同的排除标准。每项研究使用了这些排除标准的不同组合。在这些排除标准组合下,数据集中被排除的所有结肠镜检查的比例从0%到92.2%不等。所有结肠镜检查的平均ADR为39.1%。应用这28种排除标准后,平均ADR的变化范围为-5.5至+3.0个百分点。然而,排除标准对每位医生的ADR影响相对均等,因此通过ADR得出的医生排名是稳定的。

局限性

ADR评估仅限于单个私人内镜检查中心。

结论

在测量ADR时使用的排除标准存在很大差异。尽管这些排除标准会影响总体ADR,但按ADR对医生进行的相对排名是稳定的。需要对测量ADR时应用哪些排除标准达成共识定义。

相似文献

1
The impact of exclusion criteria on a physician's adenoma detection rate.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):668-75. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.056.
2
Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Oct;82(4):676-82. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.058.
3
Temporal trends and variability of colonoscopy performance in a gastroenterology practice.
Endoscopy. 2016 Mar;48(3):248-55. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-111117. Epub 2016 Jan 25.
4
Adenoma detection rate varies greatly during colonoscopy training.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jul;82(1):122-9. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.038. Epub 2015 Mar 24.
5
Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jun;77(6):925-31. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.012. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
6
Identification of physicians with unusual performance in screening colonoscopy databases: a Bayesian approach.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Mar;81(3):646-654.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.049. Epub 2014 Dec 16.
7
Longitudinal assessment of colonoscopy quality indicators: a report from the Gastroenterology Practice Management Group.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Nov;80(5):835-41. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.02.1043. Epub 2014 May 10.
8
Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):778-786.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.023. Epub 2017 Sep 1.
9
Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Mar;77(3):376-80. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.10.023. Epub 2012 Dec 1.

引用本文的文献

2
Starting position during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Tech Coloproctol. 2024 Mar 20;28(1):39. doi: 10.1007/s10151-024-02912-8.
4
Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.
Gastroenterol Rep (Oxf). 2023 Mar 10;11:goad009. doi: 10.1093/gastro/goad009. eCollection 2023.
5
Measuring and Improving Quality of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening.
Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2022;24(3):269-283. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2021.11.002. Epub 2021 Nov 14.
6
ADR evaluation of screening colonoscopies during 2016 - 2017 in a private health clinic in Peru.
Endosc Int Open. 2018 Nov;6(11):E1304-E1309. doi: 10.1055/a-0672-1045. Epub 2018 Nov 7.
7
Smoking and Other Risk Factors in Individuals With Synchronous Conventional High-Risk Adenomas and Clinically Significant Serrated Polyps.
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec;113(12):1828-1835. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0393-0. Epub 2018 Nov 1.
8
Adenoma Detection Rate Falls at the End of the Day in a Large Multi-site Sample.
Dig Dis Sci. 2018 Apr;63(4):856-859. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-4947-1. Epub 2018 Feb 3.
10
Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):778-786.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.08.023. Epub 2017 Sep 1.

本文引用的文献

2
Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death.
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1298-306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086.
3
Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jul;12(7):1137-42. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.11.023. Epub 2013 Dec 4.
5
Adenoma detection in patients undergoing a comprehensive colonoscopy screening.
Cancer Med. 2013 Jun;2(3):391-402. doi: 10.1002/cam4.73. Epub 2013 Apr 20.
6
Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2013 Jun;77(6):925-31. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.012. Epub 2013 Mar 6.
7
Natural language processing accurately categorizes findings from colonoscopy and pathology reports.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013 Jun;11(6):689-94. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.11.035. Epub 2013 Jan 11.
8
Applying a natural language processing tool to electronic health records to assess performance on colonoscopy quality measures.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Jun;75(6):1233-9.e14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.045. Epub 2012 Apr 4.
9
Measurement of adenoma detection and discrimination during colonoscopy in routine practice: an exploratory study.
Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Dec;74(6):1325-36. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.038. Epub 2011 Sep 29.
10
Developing a natural language processing application for measuring the quality of colonoscopy procedures.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Dec;18 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):i150-6. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000431. Epub 2011 Sep 21.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验