Does the “Polyp Paradox” Really Exist?

Neumann, Helmut; Rerknimitr, Rungsun

doi:10.1007/s10620-014-3312-2

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 12 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Higher detection of polyps raised the potential of the ‘polyp paradox’ where patients undergo more frequent surveillance colonoscopies due to higher detection of polyps, which is based on more vigilant colonoscopists using better techniques, rather than increased incidence or risk level [ 26 ]. A longitudinal follow-up found that use of HD equipment versus SD at index colonoscopy did not result in any significant difference in subsequent interval adenoma or polyp detection, although there was a trend to lower detection rates in those who had a HD index colonoscopy [ 27 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Factors Associated with Polyp Detection Rate in European Colonoscopy Practice: Findings of The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group

Spada

Koulaouzidis

Hassan

et al. 2022

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group aims to raise awareness for improvement in colonoscopy standards across Europe. We analysed data collected on a sample of procedures conducted across Europe to evaluate the achievement of the polyp detection rate (PDR) target. We also investigated factors associated with PDR, in the hope of establishing areas that could lead to a quality improvement. Methods: 6445 form completions from 12 countries between 2 June 2016 and 30 April 2018 were considered for this analysis. We performed an exploratory analysis looking at PDR according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) definition. Stepwise multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine the most influential associated factors after adjusting for the other pre-specified variables. Results: In our sample there were 3365 screening and diagnostic procedures performed in those over 50 years. The PDR was 40.5%, which is comparable with the ESGE minimum standard of 40%. The variables found to be associated with PDR were in descending order: use of high-definition equipment, body mass index (BMI), patient gender, age group, and the reason for the procedure. Use of HD equipment was associated with a significant increase in the reporting of flat lesions (14.3% vs. 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and protruded lesions (34.7% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: On average, the sample of European practice captured by the ECQI survey meets the minimum PDR standard set by the ESGE. Our findings support the ESGE recommendation for routine use of HD colonoscopy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%