Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/a-1221-4922
Educational interventions are associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Background and study aims The quality of screening-related colonoscopy depends on several physician- and patient-related factors. Adenoma detection rate (ADR) varies considerably between endoscopists. Educational interventions aim to improve endoscopists’ ADRs, but their overall impact is uncertain. We aimed to assess whether there is an association between educational interventions and colonoscopy quality indicators.
Methods A comprehensive search was performed through August 2019 for studies reporting any associations between educational interventions and any colonoscopy quality indicators. Our primary outcome of interest was ADR. Two authors assessed eligibility criteria and extracted data independently. Risk of bias was also assessed for included studies. Pooled rate ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models.
Results From 2,253 initial studies, eight were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 86,008 colonoscopies. Educational interventions were associated with improvements in overall ADR (RR 1.29, 95 % CI 1.25 to 1.42, 95 % prediction interval 1.09 to 1.53) and proximal ADR (RR 1.39, 95 % CI 1.29 to 1.48), with borderline increases in withdrawal time, ([WT], mean difference 0.29 minutes, 95 % CI – 0.12 to 0.70 minutes). Educational interventions did not affect cecal intubation rate ([CIR], RR 1.01, 95 % CI 1.00 to 1.01). Heterogeneity was considerable across many of the analyses.
Conclusions Educational interventions are associated with significant improvements in ADR, in particular, proximal ADR, and are not associated with improvements in WT or CIR. Educational interventions should be considered an important option in quality improvement programs aiming to optimize the performance of screening-related colonoscopy.
Publication History
Received: 08 April 2020
Accepted: 25 June 2020
Article published online:
22 September 2020
© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commecial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 American Cancer Society. Key Statistics for Colorectal Cancer. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2020 Accessed: 2020 May 22 https://www.cancer.org/cancer/colon-rectal-cancer/about/key-statistics.html
- 2 Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR. et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med 1988; 319: 525-532
- 3 Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O'Brien MJ. et al. Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687-696
- 4 Ran T, Cheng CY, Misselwitz B. et al. Cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening strategies-a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 1969-1981.e1915
- 5 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
- 6 Rees CJ, Gibson TS, Rutter MD. et al. UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards for colonoscopy. Gut 2016; 65: 1923-1929
- 7 Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795-1803
- 8 Singh S, Singh PP, Murad MH. et al. Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of interval colorectal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1375-1389
- 9 Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ. et al. Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut 2015; 64: 1248-1256
- 10 Kaminski MF, Gibson TS, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
- 11 Hilsden RJ, Rose SM, Dube C. et al. Defining and applying locally relevant benchmarks for the adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol 2019; 114: 1315-1321
- 12 Mehrotra A, Morris M, Gourevitch RA. et al. Physician characteristics associated with higher adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 778-786.e775
- 13 Ezaz G, Leffler DA, Beach S. et al. Association between endoscopist personality and rate of adenoma detection. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 1571-1579.e1577
- 14 Sanaka MR, Gohel T, Podugu A. et al. Adenoma and sessile serrated polyp detection rates: variation by patient sex and colonic segment but not specialty of the endoscopist. Dis Colon Rectum 2014; 57: 1113-1119
- 15 Heresbach D, Barrioz T, Lapalus MG. et al. Miss rate for colorectal neoplastic polyps: a prospective multicenter study of back-to-back video colonoscopies. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 284-290
- 16 Facciorusso A, Triantafyllou K, Murad MH. et al. Compared Abilities of endoscopic techniques to increase colon adenoma detection rates: a network meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2439-2454.e2425
- 17 Forbes N, Mohamed R, Raman M. Learning curve for endoscopy training: Is it all about numbers?. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30: 349-356
- 18 Shaukat A, Oancea C, Bond JH. et al. Variation in detection of adenomas and polyps by colonoscopy and change over time with a performance improvement program. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009; 7: 1335-1340
- 19 Rajasekhar PT, Rees CJ, Bramble MG. et al. A multicenter pragmatic study of an evidence-based intervention to improve adenoma detection: the Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy (QIC) study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 217-224
- 20 Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1
- 21 The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa, ON: The Ottawa Hospital; 2019 Accessed: 2020 May 22 http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
- 22 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
- 23 Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011; 342: d549
- 24 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 Accessed: 2020 May 22 http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/front_page.htm
- 25 Egger M, Smith DG, Schneider M. et al. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997; 315: 629-634
- 26 Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994; 50: 1088-1101
- 27 Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN. et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219-226
- 28 Wallace MB, Crook JE, Thomas CS. et al. Effect of an endoscopic quality improvement program on adenoma detection rates: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial in a clinical practice setting (EQUIP-3). Gastroint Endosc 2017; 85: 538-545
- 29 Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R. et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: A randomised trial. Gut 2016; 65: 616-624
- 30 Keswani R, Yadlapati R, Gleason K. et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1134
- 31 Hall B, Benson M, Pfau P. et al. Improved Adenoma detection rates at an academic gastroenterology unit following department colonoscopy assessment. Gastroint Endosc 2010; 71: AB107-108
- 32 Corley D, Jensen C, Lee J. et al. Increasing physician adenoma detection rate is associated with a reduced risk of post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: S151
- 33 Berger D, Hubbard E, Greenspan M. et al. Non-neoplastic resection rate and adenoma detection rate increase after intervention to improve and monitor ADR. Gastroint Endosc 2017; 85: AB395
- 34 Evans B, Pace D, Borgaonkar M. et al. Effect of an educational intervention on colonoscopy quality outcomes. Surg Endosc 2019;
- 35 Rank J. Increased Adenoma Find Rate (AFR) and proportionately greater serrated adenoma find rate (safr) following a systematic quality improvement program in a large community gastroenterology practice. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: S199-200
- 36 Salden B, Bouwens M, Winkens B. et al. Systematic training improved the quality of colonoscopy by reducing the variation of quality indicators among providers. Gastroenterology 2012; 142: S2218
- 37 Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298-1306
- 38 Bishay K, Causada-Calo N, Scaffidi MA. et al. Endoscopist feedback is associated with improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroint Endosc 2020; Online ahead of print.
- 39 Madhoun MF, Tierney WM. The impact of video recording colonoscopy on adenoma detection rates. Gastroint Endosc 2012; 75: 127-133
- 40 Scaffidi MA, Grover SC, Carnahan H. et al. A prospective comparison of live and video-based assessments of colonoscopy performance. Gastroint Endosc 2018; 87: 766-775
- 41 Waschke KA, Anderson J, Macintosh D. et al. Training the gastrointestinal endoscopy trainer. Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol 2016; 30: 409-419
- 42 Peyton J. Teaching and learning in medical practice. Rickmansworth, UK: Manticore Europe Limited; 1998
- 43 Ekkelenkamp VE, Koch AD, de Man RA. et al. Training and competence assessment in GI endoscopy: a systematic review. Gut 2016; 65: 607-615
- 44 le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ. et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957-963
- 45 Sedgwick P, Greenwood N. Understanding the Hawthorne effect. BMJ 2015; 351: h4672
- 46 Lim S, Hammond S, Park J. et al. Training interventions to improve adenoma detection rates during colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2019;