ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Colonoscopy Quality Indicators in Transition: From Adenoma Detection Rate to Serrated Lesion Detection and Beyond.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Computational Models in the Detection of Colorectal Carcinoma and Precancerous Lesions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Colonoscopy for Colorectal Lesion Detection: Current Evidence, Challenges, and Future Directions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Association Between Colonoscopy Withdrawal Time and Adenoma Detection: Evidence of a Continuous Dose-Response Relationship.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Navigating the Terrain of Post-Polypectomy Surveillance: Charting the Complex Landscape of Guidelines and Recurrence Risks.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Colonoscopy is central to colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention, and its effectiveness is determined by the quality of mucosal inspection and lesion detection. The adenoma detection rate (ADR) remains the most widely validated quality benchmark due to its strong inverse association with interval CRC. However, reliance on ADR alone is increasingly recognized as insufficient, particularly given the growing understanding of the serrated neoplasia pathway, which contributes up to one-third of sporadic CRCs. This has driven the emergence of complementary metrics, such as the sessile polyp detection rate (SPDR) and adenomas per colonoscopy (APC). Although SPDR offers important advantages for capturing serrated pathology, challenges persist, including interobserver variability, inconsistent pathology thresholds, limited endoscopist training, and the absence of standardized benchmarks. Alongside these evolving metrics, technological advancements such as image-enhanced endoscopy, computer-aided detection, high-definition optics, and distal attachment devices have demonstrated measurable improvements in detecting subtle lesions and reducing operator-dependent variability. Large real-world registries, including GIQuIC, now support the development and validation of composite models that integrate ADR, SPDR, and APC to better reflect the full spectrum of neoplasia detection. As the field advances, redefining colonoscopy quality will require reconciling established metrics with newer indicators that more comprehensively address both conventional adenomas and serrated lesions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.