Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) Irrespective of Indication Is Comparable to Screening ADR: Implications for Quality Monitoring.

Kaltenbach T, Gawron A, Meyer CS, Gupta S, Shergill A, Dominitz JA, Soetikno RM, Nguyen-Vu T, A Whooley M, Kahi CJ. Adenoma Detection Rate (ADR) Irrespective of Indication Is Comparable to Screening ADR: Implications for Quality Monitoring. Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association. 2021 Sep 1; 19(9):1883-1889.e1.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND and AIMS: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key measure of colonoscopy quality. However, efficient measurement of ADR can be challenging because many colonoscopies are performed for non-screening purposes. Measuring ADR without being restricted to screening indication may likely facilitate more widespread implementation of quality monitoring. We hypothesized that the ADR for all colonoscopies, irrespective of the indication, would be equivalent to the ADR for screening colonoscopies. METHODS: We reviewed consecutive colonoscopies at two Veterans Affairs centers performed by 21 endoscopists over 6 months in 2015. We calculated the ADR for screening exams, non-screening (surveillance and diagnostic) exams, and all exams (irrespective of indication), correcting for within-endoscopist correlation. We then performed simulation modeling to calculate the ADRs under 16 hypothetical scenarios of various indication distributions. We simulated 100,000 trials with 3,000 participants, randomly assigned indication (screening, surveillance, diagnostic, and FIT+) from a multinomial distribution, randomly drew adenoma using the observed ADRs per indication, and calculated 95% confidence intervals of the mean differences in ADR of screening and non-screening indications. RESULTS: Among 2628 colonoscopies performed by 21 gastroenterologists, the indication was screening in 28.9%, surveillance in 48.2% and diagnostic in 22.9%. There was no significant difference in the ADR, 50% (95%CI: 45-56%) for all colonoscopies vs 49% (95%CI: 43-56%) for screening exams (p = .55). ADRs were 56% for surveillance and 38% for diagnostic exams. In our simulation modeling, only one out of 16 scenarios (screening 10%, surveillance 70%, diagnostic 10% and FIT+ 10%) resulted in a significant difference between the calculated ADRs for screening and non-screening indications. CONCLUSIONS: In our study, the overall ADR computed from all colonoscopies was not significantly different than the conventional ADR based on screening colonoscopies. Assessing ADR for colonoscopy irrespective of indication may be adequate for quality monitoring, and could facilitate the implementation of quality measurement and reporting. Future prospective studies should evaluate the validity of using overall ADR for quality reporting in other jurisdictions before adopting this method in clinical practice.