↓ Skip to main content

Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates

Overview of attention for article published in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, June 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
115 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates
Published in
Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, June 2010
DOI 10.1016/j.gie.2010.04.030
Pubmed ID
Authors

David G. Hewett, Douglas K. Rex

Abstract

Failures of adenoma detection diminish the effectiveness of colonoscopy. This study investigated the impact of cap-fitted colonoscopy (CFC) on the adenoma miss rate at colonoscopy. Randomized, tandem colonoscopy study. University hospital. This study involved patients undergoing elective screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Patients were randomized to undergo cap-fitted (n = 52) or regular, high-definition (n = 48) colonoscopy before undergoing a second colonoscopy by the alternate method. During CFC, a plastic cap or hood was attached to the tip of the colonoscope, which was used to flatten haustral folds and improve mucosal exposure. The primary outcome measure was the miss rate for adenomas between patients who underwent CFC first and patients who underwent regular colonoscopy first. A total of 238 adenomas were detected in 67 patients (67%), with a combined overall miss rate of 27.7%, comprising 66 missed adenomas in 38 patients. Patients undergoing initial CFC had a significantly lower miss rate for all adenomas compared with that of patients undergoing regular colonoscopy (21% vs 33%, P = .039). Miss rates with CFC were significantly lower for adenomas of ≤5 mm (22% vs 35%; P = .037). There was no significant difference in per-patient miss rates between the initial CFC group (51%, n = 18) and the initial regular colonoscopy group (63%, n = 20, P = .36). Single-center study with two endoscopists. CFC reduces miss rates for all adenomas and specifically for small adenomas. ( NCT00577083).

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 24%
Researcher 6 13%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 71%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Engineering 1 2%
Design 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 April 2017.
All research outputs
#8,534,976
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
#2,221
of 5,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,206
of 104,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
#9
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,482 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 104,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.