MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4229535562 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwz047.146

A147 ENDOSCOPIST FEEDBACK IS ASSOCIATED WITH IMPROVEMENTS IN COLONOSCOPY QUALITY INDICATORS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2020· review· en· W4229535562 on OpenAlexaff
Kirles Bishay, Natalia Causada Calo, Michael A. Scaffidi, Catharine M. Walsh, John Anderson, Alaa Rostom, C Dube, R Keswani, Steven J. Heitman, Robert J. Hilsden, Risa Shorr, Samir C. Grover, Enrique Moreno, Nauzer Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of CalgaryOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationThe Wilson CentreHospital for Sick ChildrenQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsColonoscopyMedicineMeta-analysisConfidence intervalPsychological interventionRelative riskSubgroup analysisInternal medicineAuditColorectal cancerPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Colonoscopy quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are surrogates for the effectiveness of screening-related colonoscopy. Endosocpist feedback may be associated with improvements in ADR and other quality indicators. Aims To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether an association exists between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators. Methods An electronic and manual search was conducted through May 2019 for studies reporting on endoscopist feedback and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators. Studies primarily assessing the effect of audit and feedback on trainees and studies that included interventions other then feedback were excluded from the analysis. Pooled rate ratios (RR) and weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity and meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. Results Of 1,326 initial studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 33,184 colonoscopies. Endoscopist feedback was associated with an improvement in ADR (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.09 to 1.34). Low performers derived a greater benefit from feedback (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.23) compared to moderate performers (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.29), while high performers did not derive a significant benefit (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.13). Feedback was not associated with increases in withdrawal time (WMD +0.43 minutes, 95% CI -0.50 to +1.36 minutes) or improvements in cecal intubation rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.01). Conclusions Endoscopist feedback is associated with modest improvements in ADR. Routine audit and feedback may be a feasible strategy to optimize outcomes in screening colonoscopy. Funding Agencies None

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.047
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.102

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.047
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.054
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection→French-language works237,207→