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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Boregowda, Umesha, Desai, Madhav, Nutalapati, Venkat, Paleti, Swathi, Olyaee, Mojtaba, Rastogi, Amit
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