The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study

Sung Noh Hong; In Kyung Sung; Jeong Hwan Kim; Won Hyeok Choe; Byung Kook Kim; Soon Young Ko; Jung Hyun Lee; Dong Choon Seol; Su Young Ahn; Sun-Young Lee; Hyung Seok Park; Chan Sup Shim

doi:10.5946/ce.2012.45.4.404

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Clin Endosc > Volume 45(4); 2012 > Article

Original Article The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study: Sung Noh Hong^1,2,3, In Kyung Sung¹, Jeong Hwan Kim^1,3, Won Hyeok Choe¹, Byung Kook Kim¹, Soon Young Ko¹, Jung Hyun Lee^1,2, Dong Choon Seol¹, Su Young Ahn¹, Sun-Young Lee¹, Hyung Seok Park¹, Chan Sup Shim^1,2; Clinical Endoscopy 2012;45(4):404-411.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.4.404
Published online: November 30, 2012

¹Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

²Healthcare Center, Konkuk University Medical Center, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

³Medical Immunology Center, Institute of Biomedical Science and Technology, Konkuk University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Correspondence: In Kyung Sung. Department of Internal Medicine, Konkuk University School of Medicine, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 143-729, Korea. Tel: +82-2-2030-5010, Fax: +82-2-2030-7748, 20050051@kuh.ac.kr

• Received: December 18, 2011 • Revised: April 8, 2012 • Accepted: April 24, 2012

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

10,348 Views
130 Download
74 Crossref
71 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
Acknowledgments
Acknowledgments
NOTES
REFERENCES

Abstract

Background/Aims
Although a small amount of fecal material can obscure significant colorectal lesions, it has not been well documented whether bowel preparation status affects the missing risk of colorectal polyps and adenomas during a colonoscopy.
Methods
We prospectively enrolled patients with one to nine colorectal polyps and at least one adenoma of >5 mm in size at the screening colonoscopy. Tandem colonoscopy with polypectomy was carried out within 3 months.
Results
A total of 277 patients with 942 polyps and 714 adenomas completed index and tandem examinations. At the index colonoscopy, 187 polyps (19.9%) and 127 adenomas (17.8%) were missed. The per-patient miss rate of polyps and adenomas increased significantly as the bowel cleansing rate declined from excellent to poor/inadequate on the Aronchick scale (polyps, p=0.024; adenomas, p=0.040). The patients with poor/inadequate bowel preparation were independently associated with an increased risk of having missed polyps (odds ratio [OR], 3.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 9.15) or missed adenomas (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.04 to 8.88) compared to the patients with excellent bowel preparation.
Conclusions
The risk of missing polyps and adenomas during screening colonoscopy is significantly affected by bowel preparation status. It seems appropriate to shorten the colonoscopy follow-up interval for patients with suboptimal bowel preparation.
Keywords: Bowel preparation; Polyp miss rate; Adenoma miss rate; Colonoscopy; Surveillance

INTRODUCTION

Most of colorectal cancers arise from pre-existing adenomatous polyps.1 Such an adenoma carcinoma sequence provides an opportunity for prevention of colorectal cancers.1-3 However, about 3% to 6% of colorectal cancers are diagnosed between screening and post-screening surveillance examinations,4-10 and the majority of these interval cancers are thought to originate from missed lesions that were overlooked at the screening colonoscopy.11,12 According to emerging evidences, the effectiveness of colonoscopy depend on the quality of the examination.13-15 High quality bowel cleaning is an essential prerequisite to improve the quality of colonoscopy, because even a small amount of residual fecal matter can obscure a significant colorectal lesion. However, suboptimal bowel preparation has been reported as much as 20% of all colonoscopic examinations.16,17 Poor preparation can result not only in prolonged cecal intubation time and withdrawal time, it can also reduce detection rate of both small and large polyps.13 In practice, although guidelines advocate a repeated colonoscopy when suboptimal bowel preparation is detected,11,18,19 the shortening of the interval to the next colonoscopy is often recommended without supporting evidences when confronted.20 To assess the relevance of such an approach, it is necessary to investigate the risk of missing polyps, adenomas and advanced adenomas during the screening colonoscopy depending on the bowel preparation status.21

We performed this prospective study to investigate the risk of missing polyps and adenomas according to the bowel preparation status during colonoscopies using a tandem colonoscopic evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study population

This study was performed on a consecutive series of patients who had one to nine colorectal polyps and at least one adenoma sized more than 5 mm at the high-quality screening colonoscopy from May 2009 to September 2010 at Konkuk University Medical Center in Seoul, Republic of Korea. The enrolled patients underwent tandem colonoscopy with polypectomy within the next 3 months. The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the Konkuk University Medical Center.

Subjects were excluded if they met one of the following criteria: 1) the colonoscopy did not reach the cecum, 2) withdrawal time of index colonoscopy was less than 6 minutes, 3) patients with 10 or more polyps detected at the index colonoscopy and suspected of having polyposis syndrome, 4) tandem colonoscopy was performed 3 months after the index colonoscopy, 5) the bowel preparation at the tandem colonoscopy was fair, poor or inadequate based on the Aronchick scale, 6) patients with a history of bowel resection, and 7) patients with inflammatory bowel disease.

Assessment of the bowel preparation status

The bowel preparation status was assessed using previously published and validated bowel preparation scales: the Aronchick scale22 and the Ottawa bowel preparation quality scale (Ottawa scale).23 The Aronchick scale assesses the preparation quality of the entire colon as excellent (a small volume of clear liquid or greater than 95% of the surface seen), good (a large volume of clear liquid covering 5% to 25% of the surface but greater than 90% of the surface was seen), fair (some semisolid stool that could be suctioned or washed away, but greater than 90% of the surface was seen), poor (semisolid stool that could not be suctioned or washed away and less than 90% of the surface was seen), or inadequate (repeat preparation and colonoscopy was needed). The Ottawa scale assesses the cleanliness of the right (from the cecum to the ascending colon), mid (from the transverse colon to the descending colon), and recto-sigmoid colon individually by rating each colon segment on a scale of 0 to 4. The fluid quantity is a global value for the entire colon and this is rated from 0 to 2. The score of the Ottawa scale is calculated by adding the cleanliness scores and the fluid quantity score. Thus, the scale has a range from 0 (perfect) to 14 (solid stool in each colon segment and lots of fluid, i.e., a completely unprepared colon). Bowel preparation quality was scored after sufficient washing and suctioning of fecal debris.

Before applying the bowel preparation scales in this study, the participating endoscopists undertook a calibration exercise for achieving excellent inter-observer agreement (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC >0.8). The calibration exercise was carried out using 10 testing colonoscopy images. If the ICC of the inter-observer agreement failed to reach 0.8, then a calibration exercise with discussions among the endoscopists was repeated. After 2 weeks of calibration exercises, the inter-observer agreement was re-measured using 10 different testing colonoscopy images. This calibration exercise was repeated until excellent inter-observer agreement was achieved among the endoscopists.

Colonoscopy

Four experienced endoscopists accredited by the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy participated in this study. The adenoma detection rates of the endoscopists ranged from 34% to 28%. Bowel cleansing was performed using polyethylene glycol (Colyte 4 L; Taejun Pharm. Co., Ltd., Seoul, Korea) or NaP (Fleet; Unimed Pharm. Inc., Seoul, Korea) as previously described.24 For all the study procedures, high-definition CF-H260AI colonoscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) was used. During the index colonoscopy, the participating endoscopists recorded the adenoma characteristics including size, number, shape, and location, withdrawal time, and bowel preparation status assessed by the Aronchick and Ottawa scales. Tandem colonoscopy was performed within 3 months after the index colonoscopy. The median interval between the colonoscopies was 38 days (range, 5 to 89). Suboptimal bowel preparation at screening colonoscopy was associated with several causes, including the failure to follow preparation instructions, later start time of colonoscopy, and history of constipation. To improve the bowel preparation status at the tandem examination, we tried to identify whether or not the patients had consumed the preparation as prescribed. If a participant did not follow the preparation instructions, we strongly recommended him/her to follow the instructions. For participants who followed the preparation instruction, we recommended a longer period of dietary restriction to clear liquids or addition of bisacodyl for those with constipation in order to improve the bowel preparation status at the tandem colonoscopy.

All detected lesions were removed during the tandem colonoscopy using snare polypectomy or endoscopic mucosal resection. In order to find and remove the colorectal adenomas during the tandem colonoscopy, the size, location, and shape of the detected lesions were recorded in the data sheet in detail during the index colonoscopy. Since polyps of ≤5 mm is often impossible to find at tandem colonoscopy, they were removed during the index colonoscopy using cold biopsy polypectomy or cold snare polypectomy.

The adenoma size was estimated during the index colonoscopy using open-biopsy forceps. Adenoma were categorized as diminutive (≤5 mm), small (5 to 9 mm) or large (≥10 mm) according to their size. The location of the adenoma was classified as right (from cecum to ascending colon), mid (from transverse colon to descending colon), or recto-sigmoid colon as described in the Ottawa scale.23 The shape of a colorectal adenoma was classified as pedunculated, sessile, or flat/depressed. A flat/depressed lesion was defined as an endoscopically visible flat and/or depressed mucosal lesion with a height less than half the diameter of the lesion.25,26

Statistics

Continuous variables are expressed as the mean±standard deviation, while categorical variables are presented as absolute values and percentages. Differences between the continuous variables were analyzed using the unpaired Student's t-test, and differences between the categorical variables were analyzed using the χ² test and Fisher's exact test as appropriate.

To assess the inter-observer agreement, the ICC and 95% predictive interval (PI) for the Aronchick and Ottawa scales were calculated. An ICC greater than 0.80 is defined as excellent agreement.27 The statistical correlation between the Aronchick and Ottawa scales was calculated using Spearman's rank correlation test.

The relationship between the bowel preparation status assessed by the Aronchick scale and the missed polyps, adenomas, or advanced adenomas was analyzed using the χ² test for trends. The per-patient miss rate was calculated by dividing the number of patients with missing lesions at the index colonoscopy by the total number of patients.28 The per-polyp miss rate was calculated by dividing the number of missing lesions at the index colonoscopy by the total number of lesions found either on the index or tandem colonoscopies.28

To investigate the risk of missing polyps, adenomas or advanced adenomas in a patient according to the bowel preparation status assessed by Aronchick scale, multivariate analysis was performed using logistic regression analysis adjusted with age, gender, withdrawal time, and number of polyps detected at index colonoscopy. For each variable, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. The analyses were performed with SPSS software version 12.0K (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS

Assessment of the inter-observer agreement for the bowel preparation status

At 2 weeks after the initial calibration exercise, the inter-observer agreement for assessing the bowel preparation status was first measured using the ICCs for the Aronchick and Ottawa scales, which were 0.749 (95% PI, 0.495 to 0.919) and 0.862 (95% PI, 0.690 to 0.958), respectively. After the second calibration exercise, the ICCs for the Aronchick and Ottawa scales reached 0.822 (95% PI, 0.615 to 0.945) and 0.880 (95% PI, 0.724 to 0.964), respectively.

Per-patient analysis

A total of 277 patients with 942 polyps and 714 adenomas completed the 1st and tandem colonoscopies with polyp removal within 3 months. Table 1 shows the clinical characteristics of the study patients. The mean age was 56.2±11.3 years, and 191 patients were male. There were no significant differences in gender or number of polyps and adenomas detected at the index colonoscopy between the patients with and without missed polyps, adenomas or advanced adenomas. However, the patients with missed adenomas were older than those without a missed advanced adenoma. There was a strong positive correlation between the Aronchick and Ottawa scales (r=0.917; p<0.001).

The bowel preparation of the index colonoscopy, according to the Aronchick scale, was described as excellent in 88 patients (32%), good in 114 patients (41%), fair in 56 patients (20%), poor in 17 patients (6%), and inadequate in two patients (1%). Table 2 shows the per-patient miss rate analysis of polyp, adenoma, and advanced adenoma according to bowel preparation status. When the bowel preparation status was assessed by the Aronchick scale, the per-patient miss rate of polyps, adenomas and advanced adenomas increased significantly as bowel preparation declined from excellent, to good, to fair, and to poor/inadequate (per-patient polyp miss rate, 27%, 35%, 36%, and 58%, respectively, p=0.024; per-patient adenoma miss rate, 21%, 27%, 27%, and 47%, respectively, p=0.040; per-patient advanced adenoma miss rate, 9%, 17%, 18%, and 37%, respectively, p=0.006). In addition, when the bowel preparation was assessed by the Ottawa scale, the score was higher in patients with missed lesions, compared to those without a missed lesion (polyp, 3.4±2.4 vs. 4.2±3.2, p=0.036; adenoma, 3.5±2.5 vs. 4.3±3.2, p=0.046; advanced adenoma, 3.5±2.6 vs. 4.6±3.2, p=0.015) (Table 3).

To identify whether the bowel preparation status is an independent variable associated with missed polyps, adenomas or advanced adenomas, multivariate analyses were performed (Table 4). The patients with poor/inadequate bowel preparation were independently associated with an increased risk of having missed polyps (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.13 to 9.15), missed adenomas (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.04 to 8.88), or missed advanced adenomas (OR, 5.28; 95% CI, 1.58 to 17.68) compared to those with excellent bowel preparation.

Per-polyp analysis

Among the total 942 polyps, 187 polyps were missed at the screening colonoscopy, with 19.9% of polyp miss rate. Among the total 714 adenomas, 127 adenomas were missed at the screening colonoscopy, producing 17.8% of adenoma miss rate. When the bowel preparation was excellent, good, fair, or poor/inadequate, the miss rate of polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas significantly increased (polyp miss rate, 14%, 17%, 26%, and 48%, respectively, p<0.001; adenoma miss rate, 12%, 17%, 22%, and 40%, respectively, p<0.001; advanced adenoma miss rate, 9%, 6%, 19%, and 58%, respectively, p<0.001) (Table 5).

DISCUSSION

Even though colonoscopy is considered the "Criterion Standard" for the detection of colorectal neoplasms,19,29,30 colonoscopies are not infallible. Previous tandem colonoscopy studies have reported that the miss rate for overall adenomas ranged from 12% to 24%.28,31-34 Interestingly, these tandem colonoscopy studies demonstrated miss rates of colonoscopy for adenomas ≥1 cm in size between 0% and 6%,28,31-34 which have been increased recently to 12% to 17% due to results from computed tomography colonography studies.35-37 However, these studies enrolled only patients with an adequate bowel preparation.35-37 It is not a special occasion tosee a patient with suboptimal bowel preparation in daily colonoscopy practice.16,17 The patients with suboptimal bowel preparation are thought to be associated with increased risk of having missed colorectal neoplasms, but there has been no report on the risk of missing polyps and adenomas during screening colonoscopy according to the bowel preparation status.

Instead, most of previous studies have evaluated the effect of bowel preparation on adenoma detection rate.10,15,17,38 A larger retrospective study using approximately 93,000 colonoscopies recorded in the Clinical Outcome Research Initiative identified higher detection rates in the cases with adequate preparation versus those with inadequate preparation (26% vs. 29%, p<0.001).17 This finding was supported by another study of 5,832 patients, which reported that the detection of neoplasms, including polyps of any size as well as large lesions (≥10 mm), were associated with the quality of bowel preparation.38 However, the most reliable method to evaluate the quality of colonoscopy is considered to assess the risk of missing lesion during colonoscopy by performing tandem colonoscopy.21

In this study, when the bowel preparation was assessed by the most commonly used validated bowel preparation scales, the Aronchick scales, the per-patient miss rate and per-polyp miss rate of polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas increased significantly as the bowel preparation became suboptimal. Interestingly, the per-patient miss rates for polyps, adenomas, and advanced adenomas increased remarkably between fair and poor/inadequate preparations (polyp, 36% to 58%; adenoma, 27% to 47%; advanced adenoma, 18% to 37%). In addition, when the bowel preparation was assessed by the Ottawa scale, mean Ottawa scores were higher in the patients with missed lesions than the patients without a missed lesion (polyp, 3.4±2.4 vs. 4.2±3.2, p=0.036; and adenoma, 3.5±2.5 vs. 4.3±3.2, p=0.046). Multivariate analyses also revealed that the patients with poor/inadequate bowel preparation status was associated with an increased risk of a missed polyp, missed adenoma, and missed advanced adenoma. In contrast to previous studies, our results showed that the withdrawal time was not associated with the risk of missed lesions. One possible reason is that the cases with less than 6 minutes of withdrawal time for the index colonoscopy were excluded in our study.

The practical guidelines for bowel preparation status endorse only one of two options: a repeat colonoscopy upon inadequate preparation or colonoscopies at regular intervals for satisfactory preparation.11,18,19 However, up to 20% of patients who have had a colonoscopy were reported as suboptimal,17,38 and repeated colonoscopies can induce high medical cost and unexpected complications. When confronted with an intermediate-quality or low-quality preparation, most endoscopists recommend a shorter follow-up interval, rather than repeating the procedure.20 This variability and uncertainty may be related to the fact that the incremental yield of repeating a colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation is not known. Our study documented that the patients with poor/inadequate bowel preparation have increased risk of having missed polyps (OR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.13 to 9.15), missed adenomas (OR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.04 to 8.88), and missed advanced adenomas (OR, 5.28; 95% CI, 1.58 to 17.68) compared to those with excellent bowel preparation. Therefore, it might be recommended that the interval of follow-up colonoscopy should be reduced for patients with suboptimal bowel preparation, as most endoscopists already do.

Our study has several limitations. First, when determining the true polyp miss rate of colonoscopy, the patients with adenomas as well as those without adenomas were included. The finding of adenomas at index colonoscopy increases the chance of having missed adenomas.32 All participants in our study had one or more adenoma larger than 5 mm. Therefore, it is likely that the overall miss rate was inflated in this study and did not imply the real polyp miss rate in clinical practice.28,31-34 Second, we excluded patients with more than 10 polyps, because patients with 10 or more adenomatous polyps are at increased probability of having missed lesions.18 Although the patients with numerous polyps were not common, the exclusion of patients with numerous polyps could introduce bias. In addition, Among the 277 enrolled patients, 187 patients (67.5%) underwent tandem colonoscopy with polypectomy by the same colonoscopist who performed their screening colonoscopy. Remaining patients underwent tandem colonoscopy by different colonoscopists in this study. Different adenoma detection rates and techniques between the colonoscopists could lead to bias.

In conclusion, it is clear that suboptimal bowel preparation not only prolongs the overall procedure time,38 decreases the cecal intubation rates,38,39 leads to increased costs associated with colonoscopy,40 it also increases the risk of missing polyps or adenomas during the colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure rarely missed advanced adenomas when the bowel preparation was adequate, whereas the risk of missing advanced adenomas increased significantly when the bowel preparation was poor or inadequate. Therefore, repeated examination or shortening the colonoscopy follow-up interval might be suitable strategies for a patient with suboptimal bowel preparation. Future large-scaled multi-center studies to evaluate polyp and adenoma miss rate according to bowel preparation status in average-risk patients undergoing screening colonoscopy will be needed to further stratify the risk of developing interval cancer, as well as to determine the cost-effectiveness of repeated examination versus shortening of the colonoscopy follow-up interval in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Konkuk University Medical Center Research Grant 2009.

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Vogelstein B, Fearon ER, Hamilton SR, et al. Genetic alterations during colorectal-tumor development. N Engl J Med 1988;319:525–532.Article PubMed
2. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Ho MN, et al. The National Polyp Study Workgroup. Prevention of colorectal cancer by colonoscopic polypectomy. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1977–1981.Article PubMed
3. Citarda F, Tomaselli G, Capocaccia R, Barcherini S, Crespi M. Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence. Gut 2001;48:812–815.Article PubMed PMC
4. Farrar WD, Sawhney MS, Nelson DB, Lederle FA, Bond JH. Colorectal cancers found after a complete colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;4:1259–1264.Article PubMed
5. 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;132:96–102.Article PubMed
6. Hosokawa O, Shirasaki S, Kaizaki Y, Hayashi H, Douden K, Hattori M. Invasive colorectal cancer detected up to 3 years after a colonoscopy negative for cancer. Endoscopy 2003;35:506–510.Article PubMed
7. Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M, et al. Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 2005;129:34–41.Article PubMed
8. Leung K, Pinsky P, Laiyemo AO, Lanza E, Schatzkin A, Schoen RE. Ongoing colorectal cancer risk despite surveillance colonoscopy: the Polyp Prevention Trial Continued Follow-up Study. Gastrointest Endosc 2010;71:111–117.Article PubMed PMC
9. Gorski TF, Rosen L, Riether R, Stasik J, Khubchandani I. Colorectal cancer after surveillance colonoscopy: false-negative examination or fast growth? Dis Colon Rectum 1999;42:877–880.Article PubMed
10. Leaper M, Johnston MJ, Barclay M, Dobbs BR, Frizelle FA. Reasons for failure to diagnose colorectal carcinoma at colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2004;36:499–503.Article PubMed
11. Bond JH. Should the quality of preparation impact postcolonoscopy follow-up recommendations? Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2686–2687.Article PubMed
12. Pabby A, Schoen RE, Weissfeld JL, et al. Analysis of colorectal cancer occurrence during surveillance colonoscopy in the dietary polyp prevention trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:385–391.Article PubMed
13. Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006;101:873–885.Article PubMed
14. Thomas-Gibson S, Rogers P, Cooper S, et al. Judgement of the quality of bowel preparation at screening flexible sigmoidoscopy is associated with variability in adenoma detection rates. Endoscopy 2006;38:456–460.Article PubMed
15. 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.Article PubMed
16. Lebwohl B, Wang TC, Neugut AI. Socioeconomic and other predictors of colonoscopy preparation quality. Dig Dis Sci 2010;55:2014–2020.Article PubMed
17. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;58:76–79.Article PubMed
18. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, Fletcher RH, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer and the American Cancer Society. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1872–1885.Article PubMed
19. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008;134:1570–1595.Article PubMed
20. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists' recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:2680–2685.Article PubMed
21. 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;101:343–350.Article PubMed
22. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, Dufrayne F, Bergman G. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:346–352.Article PubMed
23. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004;59:482–486.Article PubMed
24. Seol DC, Hong SN, Kim JH, et al. Change in renal function after sodium phosphate preparation for screening colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2010;16:2010–2016.Article PubMed PMC
25. Soetikno R, Friedland S, Kaltenbach T, Chayama K, Tanaka S. Nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterology 2006;130:566–576.Article PubMed
26. Aaltonen LA, Hamilton SR. World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Digestive System. 2000. 2nd ed. Lyon: IARC Press.
27. Muller R, Büttner P. A critical discussion of intraclass correlation coefficients. Stat Med 1994;13:2465–2476.Article PubMed
28. 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.Article PubMed
29. Niv Y, Hazazi R, Levi Z, Fraser G. Screening colonoscopy for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic people: a meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:3049–3054.Article PubMed
30. Marbet UA, Bauerfeind P, Brunner J, Dorta G, Valloton JJ, Delco F. Colonoscopy is the preferred colorectal cancer screening method in a population-based program. Endoscopy 2008;40:650–655.Article PubMed
31. Hixson LJ, Fennerty MB, Sampliner RE, McGee D, Garewal H. Prospective study of the frequency and size distribution of polyps missed by colonoscopy. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990;82:1769–1772.Article PubMed
32. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT, et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997;112:24–28.Article PubMed
33. Bensen S, Mott LA, Dain B, Rothstein R, Baron J. Polyp Prevention Study Group. The colonoscopic miss rate and true one-year recurrence of colorectal neoplastic polyps. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:194–199.Article PubMed
34. Kasugai K, Miyata M, Hashimoto T, et al. Assessment of miss and incidence rates of neoplastic polyps at colonoscopy. Dig Endosc 2005;17:44–49.Article
35. Van Gelder RE, Nio CY, Florie J, et al. Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy in patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2004;127:41–48.Article PubMed
36. Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography: key concepts regarding polyp prevalence, size, histology, morphology, and natural history. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009;193:40–46.Article PubMed
37. Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med 2007;357:1403–1412.Article PubMed
38. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B, Vader JP. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005;61:378–384.Article PubMed
39. Nelson DB, McQuaid KR, Bond JH, Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Johnston TK. Procedural success and complications of large-scale screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2002;55:307–314.Article PubMed
40. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, Bratcher LL. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002;97:1696–1700.Article PubMed

Table 1

Clinical Characteristics of Study Population

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Table 2

Per-Patient Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Aronchick Scale

^a)Chi-square test, linear by linear association.

Table 3

Per-Patient Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Ottawa Scores

Table 4

Multivariate Analysis for the Risk of the Patients with Missed Polyp, Adenoma or Advanced Adenoma by Bowel Preparation Status

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

^a)Adjustment with age, gender, withdrawal time, number of polyp detected at index colonoscopy and bowel preparation status assessed by Aronchick scale; ^b)Withdrawal time during index colonoscopy were at least 6 minutes or more.

Table 5

Per-Polyp Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Aronchick Scale

CSY, colonoscopy.

^a)Chi-square test, linear by linear association.

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

What are the priority quality indicators for colonoscopy in real‐world clinical practice?
Kasenee Tiankanon, Satimai Aniwan
Digestive Endoscopy.2024; 36(1): 30. CrossRef
Sedated Colonoscopy may not be Beneficial for Polyp/Adenoma Detection
Jie Han, Rongrong Cao, Dongshuai Su, Yingchao Li, Cong Gao, Ke Wang, Fei Gao, Xingshun Qi
Cancer Control.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Prospective Study of Dot Phrase Instructions to Improve Quality and Timeliness of Bowel Preparation for Inpatient Colonoscopies
Michael Kurin, Syed Ahmad Adil, Roma Patel, Muhammed Alikhan, Abbinaya Elangovan, Alok Tripathi, Mayada Ismail, Sagarika Satyavada, Raj Shah, Gregory Cooper
Cureus.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Sleep Disturbances, Bowel Movement Kinetics, and Travel Interruption With Bowel Preparation: A Bowel CLEANsing National Initiative Substudy
Carmen Tse, Alan Barkun, Myriam Martel, Zoann Nugent, Ian Epstein, Michael Sey, Sultanian Richard, Daniel von Renteln, Harminder Singh
American Journal of Gastroenterology.2023; 118(1): 87. CrossRef
Computer-assisted detection versus conventional colonoscopy for proximal colonic lesions: a multicenter, randomized, tandem-colonoscopy study
Thomas K.L. Lui, Dao Viet Hang, Stephen K.K. Tsao, Cynthia K.Y. Hui, Loey Lung Yi Mak, Michael K.L. Ko, Ka Shing Cheung, M.Y. Thian, R. Liang, Vivien W.M. Tsui, Chung Kwong Yeung, L.V. Dao, Wai K. Leung
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2023; 97(2): 325. CrossRef
ColonNet: A novel polyp segmentation framework based on LK-RFB and GPPD
Dong Sui, Weifeng Liu, Yue Zhang, Yang Li, Gongning Luo, Kuanquan Wang, Maozu Guo
Computers in Biology and Medicine.2023; 166: 107541. CrossRef
The necessity of intensive surveillance colonoscopy for patients with a remaining right colon after resection of colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study
Mitsuru Yokota, Jun Muto, Kazuki Hashida, Yoshio Nagahisa, Michio Okabe, Hirohisa Kitagawa, Kazuyuki Kawamoto
Surgery Today.2022; 52(3): 502. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of split-dose bowel preparation with 1 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate compared with 2 L polyethylene glycol and ascorbate in a Korean population: a phase IV, multicenter, randomized, endoscopist-blinded study
Sung Noh Hong, Chang Kyun Lee, Jong Pil Im, Chang Hwan Choi, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Young-Seok Cho, Sung-Ae Jung, Tae Il Kim, Yoon Tae Jeen
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2022; 95(3): 500. CrossRef
Relationship between Health Literacy and Knowledge, Compliance with Bowel Preparation, and Bowel Cleanliness in Older Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy
Minju Gwag, Jaeyong Yoo
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.2022; 19(5): 2676. CrossRef
Oral sulfate solution benefits polyp and adenoma detection during colonoscopy: Meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials
Cheng Chen, Mengyang Shi, Zhongli Liao, Weiqing Chen, Yongzhong Wu, Xu Tian
Digestive Endoscopy.2022; 34(6): 1121. CrossRef
Rectal Evacuation Disorders are Associated With Poor Bowel Preparation in Patients With Chronic Constipation
Mythili P. Pathipati, Casey J. Silvernale, Kenneth G. Barshop, Jasmine B. Ha, James M. Richter, Kyle D. Staller
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2022; 56(5): 438. CrossRef
Impact of looping on premalignant polyp detection during colonoscopy
Osamu Toyoshima, Toshihiro Nishizawa, Shuntaro Yoshida, Tatsuya Matsuno, Toru Arano, Ryo Kondo, Kazunori Kinoshita, Yuki Yasumi, Yosuke Tsuji, Mitsuhiro Fujishiro
World Journal of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2022; 14(11): 694. CrossRef
New insights on missed colonic lesions during colonoscopy through artificial intelligence–assisted real-time detection (with video)
Thomas K.L. Lui, Cynthia K.Y. Hui, Vivien W.M. Tsui, Ka Shing Cheung, Michael K.L. Ko, Dominic C.C. Foo, Lung Yi Mak, Chung Kwong Yeung, Tim HW Lui, Siu Yin Wong, Wai K. Leung
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2021; 93(1): 193. CrossRef
Colonoscopy in poorly prepped colons: a cost effectiveness analysis comparing standard of care to a new cleansing technology
Jeffrey Voigt, Michael Mosier, Ian M. Gralnek
Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Multidirectional Colonoscopy Quality Improvement Increases Adenoma Detection Rate: Results of the Seoul National University Hospital Healthcare System Gangnam Center Colonoscopy Quality Upgrade Project (Gangnam-CUP)
Ji Yeon Seo, Eun Hyo Jin, Jung Ho Bae, Joo Hyun Lim, Goh Eun Chung, Changhyun Lee, Min-Sun Kwak, Hae Yeon Kang, Ji Hyun Song, Sun Young Yang, Jong In Yang, Seon Hee Lim, Jeong Yoon Yim, Joo Sung Kim, Su Jin Chung
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2020; 65(6): 1806. CrossRef
Berberine versus placebo for the prevention of recurrence of colorectal adenoma: a multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled study
Ying-Xuan Chen, Qin-Yan Gao, Tian-Hui Zou, Bang-Mao Wang, Si-De Liu, Jian-Qiu Sheng, Jian-Lin Ren, Xiao-Ping Zou, Zhan-Ju Liu, Yan-Yan Song, Bing Xiao, Xiao-Min Sun, Xiao-Tan Dou, Hai-Long Cao, Xiao-Ning Yang, Na Li, Qian Kang, Wei Zhu, Hong-Zhi Xu, Hui-M
The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology.2020; 5(3): 267. CrossRef
Improving the quality of bowel preparation through an app for inpatients undergoing colonoscopy: A randomized controlled trial
Bingmei Guo, Xiuli Zuo, Zhen Li, Jun Liu, Na Xu, Xiaohui Li, Aifang Zhu
Journal of Advanced Nursing.2020; 76(4): 1037. CrossRef
A Randomized, Endoscopist-Blinded, Prospective Trial to Compare the Efficacy and Patient Tolerability between Bowel Preparation Protocols Using Sodium Picosulfate Magnesium Citrate and Polyethylene-Glycol (1 L and 2 L) for Colonoscopy
Sang Hoon Kim, Ji Hyeong Kim, Bora Keum, Han Jo Jeon, Se Hyun Jang, Seong Ji Choi, Seung Han Kim, Jae Min Lee, Hyuk Soon Choi, Eun Sun Kim, Yoon Tae Jeen, Hong Sik Lee, Hoon Jai Chun, Chang Duck Kim
Gastroenterology Research and Practice.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
Efficacy of low‐dose versus high‐dose simethicone with polyethylene glycol for bowel preparation: A prospective randomized controlled trial
De‐feng Li, Ming‐han Luo, Qing‐qing Du, Hai‐yang Zhang, Yan‐hui Tian, Ting‐ting Liu, Rui‐yue Shi, Feng Xiong, Ming‐guang Lai, Ying‐xue Li, Su Luo, Yang Song, Ben‐hua Wu, Zheng‐lei Xu, Ding‐guo Zhang, Jun Yao, Li‐sheng Wang
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2020; 35(9): 1488. CrossRef
Optimal Laxatives for Oral Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation: from High-volume to Novel Low-volume Solutions
Soo-Young Na, Won Moon
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2020; 75(2): 65. CrossRef
Impact of Inadequate Bowel Cleansing on Colonoscopic Findings in Routine Screening Practice
Tobias Niedermaier, Efrat L. Amitay, Anton Gies, Korbinian Weigl, Michael Hoffmeister, Hermann Brenner
Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology.2020; 11(4): e00169. CrossRef
Reinforced education improves the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy: An updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Xiaoyang Guo, Xin Li, Zhiyan Wang, Junli Zhai, Qiang Liu, Kang Ding, Yanglin Pan, Antonio Z Gimeno-Garcia
PLOS ONE.2020; 15(4): e0231888. CrossRef
Comparison of Oral Sulfate Solution and Polyethylene Glycol Plus Ascorbic Acid on the Efficacy of Bowel Preparation
Ji Hyung Nam, Seok Bo Hong, Yun Jeong Lim, Seongju Lee, Hyoun Woo Kang, Jae Hak Kim, Jin Ho Lee
Clinical Endoscopy.2020; 53(5): 568. CrossRef
Relationship between serrated polyps and synchronous and metachronous advanced neoplasia: A retrospective study
En‐Wei Tao, Yong Feng Wang, Tian Hui Zou, Yun Cui, Ying Xuan Chen, Qin Yan Gao
Journal of Digestive Diseases.2020; 21(10): 558. CrossRef
Efficacy and Patient Tolerability Profiles of Probiotic Solution with Bisacodyl Versus Conventional Cleansing Solution for Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Youn I Choi, Jong-Joon Lee, Jun-Won Chung, Kyoung Oh Kim, Yoon Jae Kim, Jung Ho Kim, Dong Kyun Park, Kwang An Kwon
Journal of Clinical Medicine.2020; 9(10): 3286. CrossRef
Bowel preparation for colonoscopy
Parth J. Parekh, Edward C. Oldfield, David A. Johnson
Current Opinion in Gastroenterology.2019; 35(1): 51. CrossRef
Standards of diagnostic colonoscopy for early‐stage neoplasia: Recommendations by an Asian private group
Yasushi Sano, Han‐Mo Chiu, Xiao‐bo Li, Supakij Khomvilai, Pises Pisespongsa, Jonard Tan Co, Takuji Kawamura, Nozomu Kobayashi, Shinji Tanaka, David G. Hewett, Yoji Takeuchi, Kenichiro Imai, Takahiro Utsumi, Akira Teramoto, Daizen Hirata, Mineo Iwatate, Ra
Digestive Endoscopy.2019; 31(3): 227. CrossRef
Comparison Between an Oral Sulfate Solution and a 2 L of Polyethylene Glycol/Ascorbic Acid as a Split Dose Bowel Preparation for Colonoscopy
Han Hee Lee, Chul-Hyun Lim, Jin Su Kim, Yu Kyung Cho, Bo-In Lee, Young-Seok Cho, In Seok Lee, Myung-Gyu Choi
Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology.2019; 53(10): e431. CrossRef
Multicentre endoscopist-blinded randomised clinical trial to compare two bowel preparations after a colonoscopy with inadequate cleansing: a study protocol
Michael Sai Lai Sey, Daniel von Renteln, Richard Sultanian, Cassandra McDonald, Myriam Martel, Alan Barkun
BMJ Open.2019; 9(7): e029573. CrossRef
Predictive factors for missed adenoma on repeat colonoscopy in patients with suboptimal bowel preparation on initial colonoscopy: A KASID multicenter study
Ji Young Chang, Chang Mo Moon, Hyun Jung Lee, Hyo-Joon Yang, Yunho Jung, Sang Wook Kim, Sung-Ae Jung, Jeong-Sik Byeon, Frank T. Kolligs
PLOS ONE.2018; 13(4): e0195709. CrossRef
A novel summary report of colonoscopy: timeline visualization providing meaningful colonoscopy video information
Minwoo Cho, Jee Hyun Kim, Hyoun Joong Kong, Kyoung Sup Hong, Sungwan Kim
International Journal of Colorectal Disease.2018; 33(5): 549. CrossRef
The use of chromoendoscopy for surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease
Gary R. Lichtenstein, Michael F. Picco, Sanjeev Solomon, Stephen J. Bickston
VideoGIE.2018; 3(2): 35. CrossRef
Readability of information on colonoscopy preparation on the internet
Sarah A. MacLean, Corey H Basch, Ashley Clark, Charles E Basch
Health Promotion Perspectives.2018; 8(2): 167. CrossRef
Adenoma miss rate determined by very shortly repeated colonoscopy
Cheng-Long Wang, Zhi-Ping Huang, Kai Chen, Fei-Hu Yan, Liang-Liang Zhu, Yong-Qi Shan, Yong-Jun-Yi Gao, Bai-Rong Li, Hao Wang, En-Da Yu, Zi-Ye Zhao
Medicine.2018; 97(38): e12297. CrossRef
Impact of Video Aid on Quality of Bowel Preparation Among Patients Undergoing Outpatient Screening Colonoscopy
Sanna Fatima, Deepanshu Jain, Christopher Hibbard
Clinical Medicine Insights: Gastroenterology.2018;[Epub] CrossRef
Frequency and Characteristics of Interval Colorectal Cancer in Actual Clinical Practice: A KASID Multicenter Study
Kyeong Ok Kim, Kyu Chan Huh, Sung Pil Hong, Won Hee Kim, Hyuk Yoon, Sang Wook Kim, Yeon Soo Kim, Jong Ha Park, Jun Lee, Bum Jae Lee, Young Sook Park
Gut and Liver.2018; 12(5): 537. CrossRef
Risk factors of missed colorectal lesions after colonoscopy
Jeonghun Lee, Sung Won Park, You Sun Kim, Kyung Jin Lee, Hyun Sung, Pil Hun Song, Won Jae Yoon, Jeong Seop Moon
Medicine.2017; 96(27): e7468. CrossRef
Enhanced education for bowel preparation before colonoscopy: A state‐of‐the‐art review
Zhu Liu, Ming Ming Zhang, Yue Yue Li, Li Xiang Li, Yan Qing Li
Journal of Digestive Diseases.2017; 18(2): 84. CrossRef
Polyp missing rate and its associated risk factors of referring hospitals for endoscopic resection of advanced colorectal neoplasia
Jae Gyu Shin, Hyung Wook Kim, Su Bum Park, Cheol Woong Choi, Dae Hwan Kang, Su Jin Kim, Hyeong Seok Nam, Dae Gon Ryu
Medicine.2017; 96(19): e6742. CrossRef
Split‐dose bowel preparation with polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy performed under propofol sedation. Is there an optimal timing?
Alaa Alghamry, Sureshkumar K Ponnuswamy, Aditya Agarwal, Hadi Moattar, Stephanie T Yerkovich, Ann E Vandeleur, James Thomas, John Croese, Tony Rahman, Ruth Hodgson
Journal of Digestive Diseases.2017; 18(3): 160. CrossRef
Miss rate of colorectal neoplastic polyps and risk factors for missed polyps in consecutive colonoscopies
Nam Hee Kim, Yoon Suk Jung, Woo Shin Jeong, Hyo-Joon Yang, Soo-Kyung Park, Kyuyong Choi, Dong Il Park
Intestinal Research.2017; 15(3): 411. CrossRef
Training in Endoscopy: Colonoscopy
Hyun Joo Jang
Clinical Endoscopy.2017; 50(4): 322. CrossRef
Effect of Low-Volume Split-Dose Purgative on the Quality of Bowel Prep for Colonoscopy on the Hospitalized Patient
Judy A. Corliss
Gastroenterology Nursing.2017; 40(6): 448. CrossRef
Quantification of Adequate Bowel Preparation for Screening or Surveillance Colonoscopy in Men
Brian T. Clark, Petr Protiva, Anil Nagar, Avlin Imaeda, Maria M. Ciarleglio, Yanhong Deng, Loren Laine
Gastroenterology.2016; 150(2): 396. CrossRef
A novel quality scoring system for the evaluation of individual colonoscopy: A multicenter retrospective study
Qiang Zhan, Li Xiang, Xinhua Zhao, Shengli An, Yadong Wang, Yangzhi Xu, Aimin Li, Wei Gong, Yang Bai, Yali Zhang, Side Liu
Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2016; 31(1): 172. CrossRef
Providing Hospitalized Patients With an Educational Booklet Increases the Quality of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation
William F. Ergen, Trisha Pasricha, Francie J. Hubbard, Tina Higginbotham, Tonya Givens, James C. Slaughter, Keith L. Obstein
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology.2016; 14(6): 858. CrossRef
Izinova®, nouvelle préparation orale à diluer pour lavage colique

Acta Endoscopica.2016; 46(1-2): 74. CrossRef
Factors associated with colorectal cancer occurrence after colonoscopy that did not diagnose colorectal cancer
Danny Cheung, Felicity Evison, Prashant Patel, Nigel Trudgill
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2016; 84(2): 287. CrossRef
Impact of bowel preparation type on the quality of colonoscopy: a multicenter community-based study
Daniel Martin, Saqib Walayat, Zohair Ahmed, Sonu Dhillon, Carl V. Asche, Srinivas Puli, Jinma Ren
Journal of Community Hospital Internal Medicine Pe.2016; 6(2): 31074. CrossRef
Comparative Study on Bowel Preparation Efficacy of Ascorbic Acid Containing Polyethylene Glycol by Adding Either Simethicone or 1 L of Water in Health Medical Examination Patients: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Study
Se Hwan Yeo, Jae Hoon Kwak, Yeo Un Kim, Tae Ho Kwon, Jeong Bae Park, Jun Hyung Park, Yong Kook Lee, Yun Jeong Lim, Chang Heon Yang
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 67(4): 189. CrossRef
Advanced colonic neoplasia in the first degree relatives of colon cancer patients: A colonoscopy‐based study
Hamideh Salimzadeh, Faraz Bishehsari, Mohammad Amani, Reza Ansari, Masoud Sotoudeh, Alireza Delavari, Reza Malekzadeh
International Journal of Cancer.2016; 139(10): 2243. CrossRef
Video on Diet Before Outpatient Colonoscopy Does Not Improve Quality of Bowel Preparation: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Sean C Rice, Tina Higginbotham, Melanie J Dean, James C Slaughter, Patrick S Yachimski, Keith L Obstein
American Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 111(11): 1564. CrossRef
Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Bowel Preparation on Adenoma Detection: Early Adenomas Affected Stronger than Advanced Adenomas
Michael C. Sulz, Arne Kröger, Meher Prakash, Christine N. Manser, Henriette Heinrich, Benjamin Misselwitz, Irving Coy Allen
PLOS ONE.2016; 11(6): e0154149. CrossRef
Seeing better - Evidence based recommendations on optimizing colonoscopy adenoma detection rate
Javier Aranda-Hernández
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2016; 22(5): 1767. CrossRef
Predictors of Inadequate Inpatient Colonoscopy Preparation and Its Association with Hospital Length of Stay and Costs
Rena Yadlapati, Elyse R. Johnston, Dyanna L. Gregory, Jody D. Ciolino, Andrew Cooper, Rajesh N. Keswani
Digestive Diseases and Sciences.2015; 60(11): 3482. CrossRef
Endoscopists with low adenoma detection rates benefit from high-definition endoscopy
Elisabeth Waldmann, Martha Britto-Arias, Irina Gessl, Georg Heinze, Petra Salzl, Daniela Sallinger, Michael Trauner, Werner Weiss, Arnulf Ferlitsch, Monika Ferlitsch
Surgical Endoscopy.2015; 29(2): 466. CrossRef
Preparación para colonoscopia. ¿Algún avance significativo en el horizonte?
Liseth Rivero-Sánchez, María Pellisé
Gastroenterología y Hepatología.2015; 38(4): 287. CrossRef
Risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy
Carlos Fernandes, Rolando Pinho, Iolanda Ribeiro, Joana Silva, Ana Ponte, João Carvalho
United European Gastroenterology Journal.2015; 3(4): 387. CrossRef
Impact of the Quality of Bowel Cleansing on the Efficacy of Colonic Cancer Screening: A Prospective, Randomized, Blinded Study
Jürgen Pohl, Marc Halphen, Hans Rudolf Kloess, Wolfgang Fischbach, John Green
PLOS ONE.2015; 10(5): e0126067. CrossRef
Electrolyte changes after bowel preparation for colonoscopy: A randomized controlled multicenter trial
Kyong Joo Lee
World Journal of Gastroenterology.2015; 21(10): 3041. CrossRef
Improved bowel preparation increases polyp detection and unmasks significant polyp miss rate
Ioannis S Papanikolaou
World Journal of Clinical Cases.2015; 3(10): 880. CrossRef
Factors Influencing the Miss Rate of Polyps in a Tandem Colonoscopy Study
Han Na Choi, Hyun Hee Kim, Jang Seok Oh, Hee Sang Jang, Hyun Sik Hwang, Eun Young Kim, Joong Goo Kwon, Jin Tae Jung
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2014; 64(1): 24. CrossRef
Optimizing adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
David A. Johnson, Alan N. Barkun, Larry B. Cohen, Jason A. Dominitz, Tonya Kaltenbach, Myriam Martel, Douglas J. Robertson, C. Richard Boland, Frances M. Giardello, David A. Lieberman, Theodore R. Levin, Douglas K. Rex
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2014; 80(4): 543. CrossRef
Optimizing Adequacy of Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
David A Johnson, Alan N Barkun, Larry B Cohen, Jason A Dominitz, Tonya Kaltenbach, Myriam Martel, Douglas J Robertson, Richard C Boland, Frances M Giardello, David A Lieberman, Theodore R Levin, Douglas K Rex
American Journal of Gastroenterology.2014; 109(10): 1528. CrossRef
Optimizing Adequacy of Bowel Cleansing for Colonoscopy: Recommendations From the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer
David A. Johnson, Alan N. Barkun, Larry B. Cohen, Jason A. Dominitz, Tonya Kaltenbach, Myriam Martel, Douglas J. Robertson, C. Richard Boland, Frances M. Giardello, David A. Lieberman, Theodore R. Levin, Douglas K. Rex
Gastroenterology.2014; 147(4): 903. CrossRef
Importance of the Time Interval between Bowel Preparation and Colonoscopy in Determining the Quality of Bowel Preparation for Full-Dose Polyethylene Glycol Preparation
Tae Kyung Kim, Hyung Wook Kim, Su Jin Kim, Jong Kun Ha, Hyung Ha Jang, Young Mi Hong, Su Bum Park, Cheol Woong Choi, Dae Hwan Kang
Gut and Liver.2014; 8(6): 625. CrossRef
The effect of different patient education methods on quality of bowel cleanliness in outpatients receiving colonoscopy examination
Feng-Chi Hsueh, Han-Chih Wang, Chien-An Sun, Chia-Chen Tseng, Tung-Chen Han, Szu-Mei Hsiao, Cheng-Yu Wei, Chien-Hua Chen, Tsan Yang
Applied Nursing Research.2014; 27(2): e1. CrossRef
Rural–urban differences in the long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: A population-based study
Isabelle Fournel, Vanessa Cottet, Christine Binquet, Valérie Jooste, Jean Faivre, Anne-Marie Bouvier, Claire Bonithon-Kopp
Digestive and Liver Disease.2014; 46(4): 376. CrossRef
What Are the Factors Influencing the Miss Rate of Polyps in a Tandem Colonoscopic Study?
Young-Eun Joo
The Korean Journal of Gastroenterology.2014; 64(1): 1. CrossRef
Prerequisites of Colonoscopy
Kyong Hee Hong, Yun Jeong Lim
Clinical Endoscopy.2014; 47(4): 324. CrossRef
Colonoscopy quality improvement: practice to public health
James M. Richter
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.2013; 78(6): 919. CrossRef
Recommended Intervals Between Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopies
Todd H. Baron, Thomas C. Smyrk, Douglas K. Rex
Mayo Clinic Proceedings.2013; 88(8): 854. CrossRef
Clinical Practice of Surveillance Colonoscopy according to the Classification of Colorectal Intraepithelial Neoplasia in Korea: High-grade Dysplasia/CarcinomaIn SituVersus Intramucosal Carcinoma
Sung Pil Hong, Tae Il Kim, Hyun Gun Kim, Hyun-Soo Kim, Seong-Eun Kim, Kyu Chan Huh, Jeong Eun Shin, Jae Myung Cha, Suck-Ho Lee
Intestinal Research.2013; 11(4): 276. CrossRef
Inadequate Bowel Preparation Increases Missed Polyps
Hyung Wook Kim
Clinical Endoscopy.2012; 45(4): 345. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study

Clin Endosc. 2012;45(4):404-411. Published online November 30, 2012

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5946/ce.2012.45.4.404

XML Download

The Effect of the Bowel Preparation Status on the Risk of Missing Polyp and Adenoma during Screening Colonoscopy: A Tandem Colonoscopic Study

Table 1

Clinical Characteristics of Study Population

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Table 2

Per-Patient Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Aronchick Scale

^a)Chi-square test, linear by linear association.

Table 3

Per-Patient Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Ottawa Scores

Table 4

Multivariate Analysis for the Risk of the Patients with Missed Polyp, Adenoma or Advanced Adenoma by Bowel Preparation Status

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Table 5

Per-Polyp Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Aronchick Scale

CSY, colonoscopy.

^a)Chi-square test, linear by linear association.

Table 1 Clinical Characteristics of Study Population

Values are presented as mean±SD or number (%).

Table 2 Per-Patient Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Aronchick Scale

^a)Chi-square test, linear by linear association.

Table 3 Per-Patient Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Ottawa Scores

Table 4 Multivariate Analysis for the Risk of the Patients with Missed Polyp, Adenoma or Advanced Adenoma by Bowel Preparation Status

OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.

Table 5 Per-Polyp Miss Rate of Polyp, Adenoma, and Advanced Adenoma According to Bowel Preparation Assessed by Aronchick Scale