Percentage Visualized Mucosa as a Marker for the Quality of Colonoscopy
NCT ID: NCT04482452
Last Updated: 2020-07-22
Study Results
Results pending
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
Recruitment Status
UNKNOWN
Total Enrollment
500 participants
Study Classification
OBSERVATIONAL
Study Start Date
2020-06-08
Study Completion Date
2022-05-19
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
Study Procedure/Evaluation:
The endoscopic images and scope guide from colonoscopy of 500 patients will be filmed. The investigators will correlate the detection of at least one adenoma in the cohort of included patients with the percentage of visualized mucosa during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy. Additional endpoints concerning the quality of the colonoscopy will be assessed as well.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
Study Procedure/Evaluation:
The endoscopic images and scope guide from colonoscopy of 500 patients will be filmed. The investigators will correlate the detection of at least one adenoma in the cohort of included patients with the percentage of visualized mucosa during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy. Additional endpoints concerning the quality of the colonoscopy will be assessed as well.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
The Impact of Active Nurse Participation on Adenoma Detection During Routine Colonoscopy
NCT00859625
Adenoma
COMPLETED
NA
Does Inspection During Insertion Improve Adenoma Yields During Colonoscopy?
NCT01035775
Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Polyps
COMPLETED
NA
The Effect of Bowel Preparation Status on the Polyp Missing Rate
NCT00988676
Colorectal Polyps
Colonoscopy
Bowel Preparation
+1 more
COMPLETED
The Effect of a Predictive Model of Bowel Preparation Based on Procedure-related Factors
NCT04434625
Colonoscopy
Bowel Preparation
Predictive Model
COMPLETED
NA
Does Inspection of Colonic Mucosa During Insertion Improve Adenoma Detection?
NCT03254030
Adenoma Colon
Serrated Adenoma
COMPLETED
NA
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
PROJECT OBJECTIVES AND DESIGN 1.1 Hypothesis Primary hypothesis: The percentage of mucosa visualized during the withdrawal of a colonoscopy with reference to the position in the colon by means of the scope-guide is an appropriate parameter for assessment of the quality of colonoscopy and correlates with the probability of the detection of adenomas.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 2.1 Study Design: The investigators will perform a non-interventional, single center exploratory study. Only total colonoscopies will be included. All of the examinations will be performed by board-certified specialists or fellows in training, supervised by the former. The investigators will enroll only participants who will have an explicit indication, in other words who will get a colonoscopy anyway. Therefore, colonoscopies will be conducted for a wide variety of indications including, but not limited, to CRC screening, CRC/ adenoma surveillance, abdominal symptoms such as pain, irregular defecation (diarrhea or constipation), gastrointestinal occult or overt bleeding, family history of polyps or CRC, prior colonic resection, hereditary polyposis syndromes and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Since the study does not pose any additional risk to the participants (the only thing which changes for the patient is that the endoscopic images from colonoscopy and scope guide will be filmed), the enrollment can be done during consultation hour, at the ward or shortly before a colonoscopy.
2.2 Recruitment, screening and informed consent procedure: Patients will be recruited by the project team in the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine at the Inselspital. The patient will be provided with information regarding the study. If the patient shows interest, the investigator will explain the study protocol, answer questions and check inclusion and exclusion criteria. For this study, no compensatory fee will be paid.
2.3 Study procedures: If the patient agrees to participate in the study and has signed the informed consent the colonoscopy will be performed in the usual setting and using general safety measures. The endoscopist will start filming all the phases of the colonoscopy and the position of the scope-guide simultaneously. Both films will be uploaded to the local server and then cut and analyzed with the help of iMovie. The only study procedure specific for the study is the filming and no other study specific measures will be taken.
Basic parameters of patient history and colonoscopy procedure will be recorded (compare CRF). As always, any findings of the colonoscopy will be reported to the participant/ patient after the procedure.
2.4 Withdrawal and discontinuation: If an individual withdraws informed consent after the colonoscopy or during the analysis of the data, he/she will be withdrawn from the project. All videos will be anonymized. In case of withdrawal, patient data and videos will not be considered for study purposes and will be deleted completely.
STATISTICS AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Evaluation of Videos: All videos will be anonymized. Then the percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video. The scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The investigators will record the amount of time spend in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum. For each of these segments, the investigators will record the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility.
In addition to manual analysis, computer-aided analysis and artificial intelligence methods will be developed to assist the evaluation of the videos. The development of computer-aided methods consists of two phases. In the first phase, frames in the video will be extracted as individual images. Experienced physicians will be assigned to annotate the images. The position of the scope-guide will be extracted for the annotation. Then a classifier based on deep neural network will be trained on these annotated images. The percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video based on the classification results of each individual frame. The classification according to the scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The amount of time spending in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum will be determined based on deep learning prediction results. Each frame will be classified to good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility and the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility of each of the segments will be determined accordingly. In the second phase, videos will be analysed directly with deep learning methods and the consistency between the frames will be explored during the analysis to improve the accuracy.
The investigators will also analyse advancements of the endoscope from the anus to the cecum. To this end, the time until each of the segments is reached will be recorded as well as all loops which have formed within the colon.
3.2 Statistical analysis plan 3.2.1. Statistical evaluation of the primary endpoint For evaluation of the primary endpoint (adenoma detection rate as a function of mucosa visibility) the investigators will rank all investigations regarding mucosa visibility and will divide the study population in 50% individuals with the best mucosa visibility and compare this number to the 50% of individuals with the worst mucosa visibility. They will compare the fraction of individuals with at least 1 detected adenoma to individuals without a detected adenoma (Fisher exact test). They will subsequently use multivariate logistic regression to correct for confounders (age, gender, family history of CRC, personal history of adenomas, advanced adenomas, carcinomas, BMI and bowel preparation).
3.2.2. Power analysis Our study is exploratory and no proper power analysis is possible. To provide an estimation the investigators assume that the effect of poor vs. good mucosa visibility will be as good as the effect of one of a number of technical devices recently tested in clinical studies to improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Such new technical devices (NTDs) include mucosa caps attached to the tips of the endoscope which flatten and stretch the mucosa or lenses to improve the field and angle of view. In a recent meta-analysis, NTDs increased the odds of adenoma detection by 35% (odds ratio 1.35) 25. In a screening colonoscopy, an adenoma detection rate of at least 20% would be expected 26 (i.e. 50 individuals with at least one adenoma among 250 individuals). In individuals with optimal mucosa visibility, this number would be 35% higher (i.e. 68 in 250 individuals). According to the power analysis using G\* Power 3.1 27, 419 individuals would be needed to detect such a difference (i.e. 20% vs. 27% adenoma detection) with a power of 80% at an alpha level of 5%. The Investigators are aiming to include 500 individuals to account for an estimated 15% of investigations which could not be evaluated due to incomplete examinations or technical problems.
3.2.3 Statistical analysis of the secondary endpoints For the secondary outcomes, observed effects and interactions will be statistically substantiated by parametric and non-parametric tests and/ or multivariate analyses considering confounders as appropriate. A p-value \<0.05 will be considered significant.
3.3 Handling of missing data: The nature of this exploratory study allows for some tolerance regarding missing data. Patients with incomplete or missing data/videos due to technical problems will be excluded from the study.
Secondary hypothesis:
The investigators hypothesize that the percentage of visualized mucosa differs according patient specific parameters (e.g. gender, age, BMI, bowel preparation), procedure specific parameters (e.g. patient position, device, buscopan, fentanyl, withdrawal time) and investigator specific parameters (professional experience as resident and consultant).
STUDY DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 2.1 Study Design: The investigators will perform a non-interventional, single center exploratory study. Only total colonoscopies will be included. All of the examinations will be performed by board-certified specialists or fellows in training, supervised by the former. The investigators will enroll only participants who will have an explicit indication, in other words who will get a colonoscopy anyway. Therefore, colonoscopies will be conducted for a wide variety of indications including, but not limited, to CRC screening, CRC/ adenoma surveillance, abdominal symptoms such as pain, irregular defecation (diarrhea or constipation), gastrointestinal occult or overt bleeding, family history of polyps or CRC, prior colonic resection, hereditary polyposis syndromes and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Since the study does not pose any additional risk to the participants (the only thing which changes for the patient is that the endoscopic images from colonoscopy and scope guide will be filmed), the enrollment can be done during consultation hour, at the ward or shortly before a colonoscopy.
2.2 Recruitment, screening and informed consent procedure: Patients will be recruited by the project team in the Department of Visceral Surgery and Medicine at the Inselspital. The patient will be provided with information regarding the study. If the patient shows interest, the investigator will explain the study protocol, answer questions and check inclusion and exclusion criteria. For this study, no compensatory fee will be paid.
2.3 Study procedures: If the patient agrees to participate in the study and has signed the informed consent the colonoscopy will be performed in the usual setting and using general safety measures. The endoscopist will start filming all the phases of the colonoscopy and the position of the scope-guide simultaneously. Both films will be uploaded to the local server and then cut and analyzed with the help of iMovie. The only study procedure specific for the study is the filming and no other study specific measures will be taken.
Basic parameters of patient history and colonoscopy procedure will be recorded (compare CRF). As always, any findings of the colonoscopy will be reported to the participant/ patient after the procedure.
2.4 Withdrawal and discontinuation: If an individual withdraws informed consent after the colonoscopy or during the analysis of the data, he/she will be withdrawn from the project. All videos will be anonymized. In case of withdrawal, patient data and videos will not be considered for study purposes and will be deleted completely.
STATISTICS AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Evaluation of Videos: All videos will be anonymized. Then the percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video. The scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The investigators will record the amount of time spend in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum. For each of these segments, the investigators will record the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility.
In addition to manual analysis, computer-aided analysis and artificial intelligence methods will be developed to assist the evaluation of the videos. The development of computer-aided methods consists of two phases. In the first phase, frames in the video will be extracted as individual images. Experienced physicians will be assigned to annotate the images. The position of the scope-guide will be extracted for the annotation. Then a classifier based on deep neural network will be trained on these annotated images. The percentage of visible mucosa and lumen during withdrawal will be determined in each video based on the classification results of each individual frame. The classification according to the scope-guide will allow to correlate the images with the position of the colonoscope within the colon. The amount of time spending in colon segments such as the cecum, ascending colon, right flexure, right transverse colon, left transverse colon, left flexure, descending colon, sigma and rectum will be determined based on deep learning prediction results. Each frame will be classified to good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility and the amount of time with good mucosa visibility and poor mucosa visibility of each of the segments will be determined accordingly. In the second phase, videos will be analysed directly with deep learning methods and the consistency between the frames will be explored during the analysis to improve the accuracy.
The investigators will also analyse advancements of the endoscope from the anus to the cecum. To this end, the time until each of the segments is reached will be recorded as well as all loops which have formed within the colon.
3.2 Statistical analysis plan 3.2.1. Statistical evaluation of the primary endpoint For evaluation of the primary endpoint (adenoma detection rate as a function of mucosa visibility) the investigators will rank all investigations regarding mucosa visibility and will divide the study population in 50% individuals with the best mucosa visibility and compare this number to the 50% of individuals with the worst mucosa visibility. They will compare the fraction of individuals with at least 1 detected adenoma to individuals without a detected adenoma (Fisher exact test). They will subsequently use multivariate logistic regression to correct for confounders (age, gender, family history of CRC, personal history of adenomas, advanced adenomas, carcinomas, BMI and bowel preparation).
3.2.2. Power analysis Our study is exploratory and no proper power analysis is possible. To provide an estimation the investigators assume that the effect of poor vs. good mucosa visibility will be as good as the effect of one of a number of technical devices recently tested in clinical studies to improve adenoma detection during colonoscopy. Such new technical devices (NTDs) include mucosa caps attached to the tips of the endoscope which flatten and stretch the mucosa or lenses to improve the field and angle of view. In a recent meta-analysis, NTDs increased the odds of adenoma detection by 35% (odds ratio 1.35) 25. In a screening colonoscopy, an adenoma detection rate of at least 20% would be expected 26 (i.e. 50 individuals with at least one adenoma among 250 individuals). In individuals with optimal mucosa visibility, this number would be 35% higher (i.e. 68 in 250 individuals). According to the power analysis using G\* Power 3.1 27, 419 individuals would be needed to detect such a difference (i.e. 20% vs. 27% adenoma detection) with a power of 80% at an alpha level of 5%. The Investigators are aiming to include 500 individuals to account for an estimated 15% of investigations which could not be evaluated due to incomplete examinations or technical problems.
3.2.3 Statistical analysis of the secondary endpoints For the secondary outcomes, observed effects and interactions will be statistically substantiated by parametric and non-parametric tests and/ or multivariate analyses considering confounders as appropriate. A p-value \<0.05 will be considered significant.
3.3 Handling of missing data: The nature of this exploratory study allows for some tolerance regarding missing data. Patients with incomplete or missing data/videos due to technical problems will be excluded from the study.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Colonoscopy
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
Observational Model Type
COHORT
Study Time Perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Colonoscopy
Diagnostic colonoscopy will be performed
Intervention Type
PROCEDURE
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* Signed informed consent.
* Ability to understand and follow study procedures and understand informed consent.
* Complete colonoscopy.
* Age at least 18 years.
* Ability to understand and follow study procedures and understand informed consent.
* Complete colonoscopy.
* Age at least 18 years.
Exclusion Criteria
\- Participation in another clinical study interfering with study procedures.
Minimum Eligible Age
18 Years
Eligible Sex
ALL
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Yes
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
OTHER
Sponsor Role
lead
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Responsibility Role
SPONSOR
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Benjamin Misselwitz, Prof.
Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR
Insel Gruppe AG, University Hospital Bern
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Inselspital
Bern, , Switzerland
Site Status
RECRUITING
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
Switzerland
Central Contacts
Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.
Facility Contacts
Find local site contact details for specific facilities participating in the trial.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2019. CA Cancer J Clin. 2019 Jan;69(1):7-34. doi: 10.3322/caac.21551. Epub 2019 Jan 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, Bresalier R, Andriole GL, Buys SS, Crawford ED, Fouad MN, Isaacs C, Johnson CC, Reding DJ, O'Brien B, Carrick DM, Wright P, Riley TL, Purdue MP, Izmirlian G, Kramer BS, Miller AB, Gohagan JK, Prorok PC, Berg CD; PLCO Project Team. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 21;366(25):2345-57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114635. Epub 2012 May 21.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernan MA, Aas E, Eide TJ, Skovlund E, Schneede J, Tveit KM, Hoff G. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014 Aug 13;312(6):606-15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8266.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Peery AF, Dellon ES, Lund J, Crockett SD, McGowan CE, Bulsiewicz WJ, Gangarosa LM, Thiny MT, Stizenberg K, Morgan DR, Ringel Y, Kim HP, DiBonaventura MD, Carroll CF, Allen JK, Cook SF, Sandler RS, Kappelman MD, Shaheen NJ. Burden of gastrointestinal disease in the United States: 2012 update. Gastroenterology. 2012 Nov;143(5):1179-1187.e3. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.08.002. Epub 2012 Aug 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ, Lieberman DA. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008 Mar;67(3):489-96. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2007.08.041. Epub 2008 Jan 7.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, Levin TR, Burt RW, Johnson DA, Kirk LM, Litlin S, Lieberman DA, Waye JD, Church J, Marshall JB, Riddell RH; U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. 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 Jun;97(6):1296-308. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.05812.x. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rees CJ, Thomas Gibson S, Rutter MD, Baragwanath P, Pullan R, Feeney M, Haslam N; British Society of Gastroenterology, the Joint Advisory Group on GI Endoscopy, the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut. 2016 Dec;65(12):1923-1929. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2016-312044. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, Pike IM, Adler DG, Fennerty MB, Lieb JG 2nd, Park WG, Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Shaheen NJ, Wani S, Weinberg DS. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan;110(1):72-90. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.385. Epub 2014 Dec 2. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Lieberman D, Ladabaum U, Cruz-Correa M, Ginsburg C, Inadomi JM, Kim LS, Giardiello FM, Wender RC. Screening for Colorectal Cancer and Evolving Issues for Physicians and Patients: A Review. JAMA. 2016 Nov 22;316(20):2135-2145. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.17418.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sulz MC, Kroger A, Prakash M, Manser CN, Heinrich H, Misselwitz B. Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas. PLoS One. 2016 Jun 3;11(6):e0154149. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154149. eCollection 2016.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
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 Jun;73(6):1207-14. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051. Epub 2011 Apr 8.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):269-76. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031. Epub 2014 Mar 12.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kluge MA, Williams JL, Wu CK, Jacobson BC, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, Calderwood AH. Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87(3):744-751. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2017.06.012. Epub 2017 Jun 23.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, Ngo LH, Lewis JM, Chuttani R, Pleskow DK, Aronson MD. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1892-8. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.08.024. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees CJ, Dekker E, Hoff G, Jover R, Suchanek S, Ferlitsch M, Anderson J, Roesch T, Hultcranz R, Racz I, Kuipers EJ, Garborg K, East JE, Rupinski M, Seip B, Bennett C, Senore C, Minozzi S, Bisschops R, Domagk D, Valori R, Spada C, Hassan C, Dinis-Ribeiro M, Rutter MD. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Apr;5(3):309-334. doi: 10.1177/2050640617700014. Epub 2017 Mar 16.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Szura M, Bucki K, Matyja A, Kulig J. Evaluation of magnetic scope navigation in screening endoscopic examination of colorectal cancer. Surg Endosc. 2012 Mar;26(3):632-8. doi: 10.1007/s00464-011-1930-8. Epub 2011 Sep 30.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Corley DA, Levin TR, Doubeni CA. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014 Jun 26;370(26):2541. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1405329. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, Hoffman B, Jacobson BC, Mergener K, Petersen BT, Safdi MA, Faigel DO, Pike IM; ASGE/ACG Taskforce on Quality in Endoscopy. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Apr;101(4):873-85. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00673.x. No abstract available.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, Polkowski M, Wojciechowska U, Didkowska J, Zwierko M, Rupinski M, Nowacki MP, Butruk E. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795-803. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, Bossuyt PM, van Deventer SJ, Dekker E. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006 Feb;101(2):343-50. doi: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00390.x.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Bressler B, Paszat LF, Chen Z, Rothwell DM, Vinden C, Rabeneck L. Rates of new or missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy and their risk factors: a population-based analysis. Gastroenterology. 2007 Jan;132(1):96-102. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2006.10.027.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Iwatate M, Kitagawa T, Katayama Y, Tokutomi N, Ban S, Hattori S, Hasuike N, Sano W, Sano Y, Tamano M. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer rate in the era of high-definition colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2017 Nov 14;23(42):7609-7617. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i42.7609.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Castaneda D, Popov VB, Verheyen E, Wander P, Gross SA. New technologies improve adenoma detection rate, adenoma miss rate, and polyp detection rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Aug;88(2):209-222.e11. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2018.03.022. Epub 2018 Apr 1.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91. doi: 10.3758/bf03193146.
Reference Type
BACKGROUND
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
2020-00074
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.
Impacts of Inspection During Instrument Insertion on Colonoscopy Quality
NCT03444090
COMPLETED
NA
Factors Associated With Short Withdrawal Time and Polyp Detection Rate During Colonoscopy
NCT01487356
COMPLETED
Development of Quality Indicators and Quality Improvement Plan of Colonoscopy in Experienced Endoscopist
NCT02385552
UNKNOWN
Pre-procedure Modle Predicts Bowel Preparation Quality Prior Colonoscopy
NCT04160104
UNKNOWN
Factors Related to a Persistent Inadequate Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
NCT04693299
UNKNOWN
Adenoma Detection by Polypectomy During Both Insertion and Withdrawal
NCT01925833
COMPLETED
NA
The Impact of Experienced Endoscopy Nurse Participation on Polyp and Adenoma Detection During Colonoscopy
NCT02292563
COMPLETED
NA
Effect of Single Colonoscopy on Colorectal Adenomas Detection
NCT02693886
UNKNOWN
Adenoma Detection Rate With Position Change at Colonoscopy
NCT00234650
COMPLETED
NA
9 Minutes for Colonoscopy Withdrawal
NCT03399045
COMPLETED
NA
Validation of a Prediction Model for Inadequate Bowel Preparation
NCT06438237
COMPLETED
Positioning During Colonoscopy
NCT01254435
COMPLETED
EARLY_PHASE1
The Effect of Taking Break During Colonoscopy Session on Adenoma Detection, a Prospective, Randomized Control Study
NCT01989650
COMPLETED
NA
Training and Validation of Models of Factors to Predict Inadequate Bowel Preparation Colonoscopy
NCT04101097
COMPLETED
Explore the Relationship Between the Percentage of Colonoscopy Withdrawal Overspeed and the ADR
NCT05444166
UNKNOWN
9 Minutes for Tandem Colonoscopy Withdrawal
NCT04797065
COMPLETED
NA
Dynamic Position Change in Colonic Adenoma Detection
NCT01366079
COMPLETED
NA
Patient Satisfaction With Sedated vs. Unsedated Colonoscopy
NCT02770742
COMPLETED
Artificial Intelligence-assisted Colonoscopy in the Detection and Characterization of Colorectal Lesions
NCT07066046
RECRUITING
NA
Predictive Model Identifies Painful Sedation-free Colonoscopy
NCT06635941
COMPLETED
External Validation of a Predictive Model for Bowel Preparation in Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy
NCT04325139
COMPLETED
Effect of Intervention for Colonoscopy Quality is Associated With the Personal Characteristics
NCT03796169
COMPLETED
NA
A Comparison of Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy Between Digestive Physicians and Non-digestive Physicians
NCT04738578
COMPLETED
The Effect of Individualized Intervention on the Quality of Bowel Preparation
NCT04446195
UNKNOWN
NA
Position Changes During Colonoscope Withdrawal and Polyp Detection
NCT01395173
COMPLETED
NA