Cargando…
Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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 AD...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33654362 http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2021.0591 |
_version_ | 1783654759184465920 |
---|---|
author | Boregowda, Umesha Desai, Madhav Nutalapati, Venkat Paleti, Swathi Olyaee, Mojtaba Rastogi, Amit |
author_facet | Boregowda, Umesha Desai, Madhav Nutalapati, Venkat Paleti, Swathi Olyaee, Mojtaba Rastogi, Amit |
author_sort | Boregowda, Umesha |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 (I(2)=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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7903562 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-79035622021-03-01 Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis Boregowda, Umesha Desai, Madhav Nutalapati, Venkat Paleti, Swathi Olyaee, Mojtaba Rastogi, Amit Ann Gastroenterol Original Article 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 (I(2)=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. Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology 2021 2021-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7903562/ /pubmed/33654362 http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2021.0591 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Boregowda, Umesha Desai, Madhav Nutalapati, Venkat Paleti, Swathi Olyaee, Mojtaba Rastogi, Amit Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | impact of feedback on adenoma detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7903562/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33654362 http://dx.doi.org/10.20524/aog.2021.0591 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT boregowdaumesha impactoffeedbackonadenomadetectionrateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT desaimadhav impactoffeedbackonadenomadetectionrateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT nutalapativenkat impactoffeedbackonadenomadetectionrateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT paletiswathi impactoffeedbackonadenomadetectionrateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT olyaeemojtaba impactoffeedbackonadenomadetectionrateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT rastogiamit impactoffeedbackonadenomadetectionrateasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |