S697 Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: There is an absence of clear evidence-based guidance to inform endoscopists on strategies aimed to improve adenoma detection rate (ADR). Given substantial endoscopist-level variability in ADR and quality metrics, there is an urgent need to systematically characterize colonoscopy quality improvement strategies. Methods: This network meta-analysis (NMA) included patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and interventions within pre-determined domains (pre-procedural parameters, intra-procedural techniques, endoscopy technologies, disposable assistive devices, and additive substances). Outcomes were ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR) right ADR, advanced ADR, sessile serrate ADR, adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), APC subtypes, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, and adverse event rates. For the NMA, we used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte-Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and corresponding 95% credible intervals (CrI) and ranked the probabilities of the interventions within each domain through a plot of surface under the cumulative ranking curves (SUCRA). We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of evidence Results: We included 118 RCTs with 93,819 unique patients evaluating 36 unique interventions. Eleven interventions were associated with improved ADR (dual observation, water exchange, iScan, linked colour imaging, computer aided detection, G-EYE, Endorings, WingCap, Endocuff Vision 1 and 2, and oral methylene blue) (Figure 1). In SUCRA analysis, dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) were ranked highest in the intraprocedural techniques domain, iScan (SUCRA, 0.95), LCI (SUCRA, 0.85), and CADe (SUCRA, 0.78) in the endoscopic technologies domain, G-EYE (SUCRA, 0.86), WingCap (SUCRA, 0.82), and Endocuff vision 1 (SUCRA, 77.4) in the disposable assistive devices domain, and methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) in the additive substances domain. Secondary outcomes are summarized in Table 1. Certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. Conclusion: These results provide important information regarding the relative efficacies of interventions to improve colonoscopy quality and are relevant to endoscopy unit managers, gastrointestinal and endoscopy societies which produce clinical guidelines, and practicing endoscopists.Figure 1.: Forrest plots with odds ratios and 95% credible intervals from network meta-analysis of primary outcome of adenoma detection rate. Table 1. - Secondary Outcomes With Effect Estimates and 95% Credible Intervals Intervention PDR, OR (95% CrI) ssADR, OR (95% CrI) rADR, OR (95% CrI) aADR, OR (95% CrI) APC (MD, 95% CrI) ssAPC (MD, 95% CrI) WT (MD, 95% CrI) CIR, RR (95% CrI) Peri-procedural parameters Bisacodyl 1.17 (0.83, 1.64) - - - - - - 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) Coffee plus PEG 1.25 (0.91, 1.74) - - - - - - - Electrolyte-free PEG 0.95 (0.73, 1.27) - - - - - - - Low dose PEG 1.14 (0.93, 1.41) - - 1.42 (0.62, 3.34) - - 0.60 (−0.78, 1.99) - Low-fibre diet 1.03 (0.85, 1.21) - - 1.33 (0.75, 2.38) - - - 1.01 (0.95, 1.06) Low fibre diet and sulfate-free PEG 1.09 (0.77, 1.51) - - - - - - 1.01 (0.98, 1.04) Patient education 0.91 (0.77, 1.07) - - - - - 0.40 (−0.65, 1.40) - Simethicone 0.86 (0.65, 1.11) - - 0.92 (0.51, 1.69) - - −0.04 (−1.08, 0.99) - Single-dose PEG - - - - - −0.40 (−1.79, 0.99) - Sulfate-based prep 0.99 (0.84, 1.13) - - 0.96 (0.58, 1.60) - - 0.20 (−1.22, 1.63) 1.00 (0.97, 1.05) Sulfate-free PEG 1.17 (0.83, 1.60) - - - - - - Intraprocedural techniques Abdominal compression device 0.91 (0.63, 1.31) - - 0.90 (0.62, 1.29) 0.16 (−0.30, 0.63) - −0.91 (−6.94, 5.10) - Dual observer 1.13 (0.88, 1.49) - 1.18 (0.56, 2.49) 1.00 (0.80, 1.24) - 2.22 (−1.20, 5.72) 1.00 (0.91, 1.09) Inspection on insertion - - 1.00 (0.48, 2.09) 1.02 (0.81, 1.30) −0.01 (−0.38, 0.28) - −3.02 (−7.37, 1.17) - Prescribed positional change 0.99 (0.70, 1.42) - - - - - 0.81 (−5.12, 6.75) - Proximal colon retroflexion - - - 0.74 (0.46, 1.18) - - - - Second forward view 1.09 (0.87, 1.35) - 1.08 (0.58, 1.95) 1.14 (0.94, 1.38) - - 1.02 (−2.42, 4.48) Segmental timed withdrawal 1.16 (0.79, 1.71) - 0.63 (0.21, 1.76) 1.28 (0.81, 2.03) 0.14 (−0.33, 0.61) - 0.00 (−5.94, 5.93) 1.00 (0.95, 1.03) Short withdrawal time - - - - - - - - Water exchange 1.33 (0.92, 1.94) - 1.12 (0.69, 1.68) 1.18 (1.04, 1.35)* - −0.02 (−3.43, 3.37) 1.00 (0.93, 1.06) Water immersion - - 1.08 (0.56, 1.99) 1.03 (0.80, 1.32) - 0.57 (−3.50, 4.64) Endoscopic technologies Blue-light imaging - - - - - - - - Computer-aided detection 1.08 (0.99, 1.18) 0.91 (0.55, 1.68) 1.21 (0.73, 1.96) 1.27 (0.62, 2.63) 0.22 (−0.08, 0.52) - 0.12 (−0.28, 0.56) - Flexible spectral imaging color enhacement 0.96 (0.84, 1.09) - - - −0.01 (−0.09, 0.08) - - - iScan 1.03 (0.88, 1.21) 1.03 (0.41, 2.56) 0.98 (0.50, 2.01) - 0.09 (−0.06, 0.24) - 0.25 (−0.18, 0.79) - Linked-color imaging 1.14 (1.06, 1.23)* 1.25 (0.49, 2.81) 1.05 (0.77, 1.42) 1.03 (0.62, 1.73) 0.19 (0.09, 0.30)* - 0.26 (−0.20, 0.74) 1.00 (0.98, 1.03) Narrow-band imaging 0.99 (0.91, 1.07) 2.92 (1.27, 6.92)* 0.92 (0.69, 1.26) 1.37 (0.79, 2.32) −0.01 (−0.09, 0.07) - 0.61 (0.21, 1.01)* 1.00 (0.99, 1.01) Ultrathin colonoscope 0.87 (0.60, 1.25) - 0.26 (0.05, 0.90)* 0.46 (0.15, 1.33) - - 1.06 (0.99, 1.15) Wide-angle colonoscope 0.96 (0.87, 1.05) 0.93 (0.47, 2.04) 0.96 (0.69, 1.33) 0.96 (0.45, 2.05) −0.24 (−0.78, 0.30) - 0.26 (−0.34, 0.89) 0.99 (0.94, 1.03) Disposable assistive devices AmplifEYE 1.10 (0.84, 1.43) 1.08 (0.57, 2.07) 1.17 (0.59, 2.27) - 0.28 (−0.84, 1.42) 0.02 (−1.58, 1.63) −0.71 (−2.88, 1.35) CaP-assisted colonoscopy 1.09 (0.89, 1.33) 0.85 (0.54, 1.30) 1.09 (0.82, 1.51) 1.02 (0.84, 1.20) 0.08 (−0.39, 0.57) 0.36 (−0.43, 1.20) 0.12 (−0.92, 1.09) 1.01 (0.97, 1.04) Endocuff vision 1 1.21 (1.06, 1.42)* 1.07 (0.69, 1.71) 0.99 (0.69, 1.40) 0.78 (−0.32, 1.88) - 0.18 (−0.93, 1.31) 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) Endocuff vision 2 1.09 (0.97, 1.23) 1.15 (0.80, 1.64) 1.05 (0.81, 1.32) 1.09 (0.92, 1.26) 0.16 (−0.37, 0.71) 0.06 (−1.08, 1.21) −0.41 (−1.22, 0.30) 1.01 (0.99, 1.05) EndoRings 1.03 (0.90, 1.18) 1.09 (0.77, 1.57) 0.88 (0.53, 1.46) 1.23 (0.80, 1.91) 0.06 (−0.59, 0.77) 0.06 (−1.07, 1.20) −0.72 (−2.07, 0.60) 0.99 (0.94, 1.05) G-EYE - - - - - - - - WingCap 1.21 (0.90, 1.63) 0.54 (0.14, 1.95) 1.18 (0.45, 3.23) - 0.27 (−0.67, 1.20) - 0.37 (−1.39, 2.12) 1.00 (0.94, 1.06) Additive substances Indigo carmine - - - - - - - - Oral methylene blue - - - - - - - - Menthol - - - - - - - - aADR (Advanced Adenoma Detection Rate), APC (Adenomas Per Colonoscopy), CIR (Cecal Intubation Rate), CrI (Credible Interval), MD (Mean Difference), OR (Odds Ratio), PDR (Polyp Detection Rate), PEG (Polyethylene Glycol), rADR (Right Adenoma Detection Rate), RR (Risk Ratio), ssADR (Sessile Serrated Adenoma Detection Rate), ssAPC (Sessile Serrated Adenomas Per Colonoscopy), WT (Withdrawal Time).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.108 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".