| Title |
The use of high definition colonoscopy versus standard definition: does it affect polyp detection rate?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-017-5962-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
John Richardson, Anthony Thaventhiran, Hugh Mackenzie, Benjamin Stubbs |
| Abstract |
Polyp detection rate (PDR) during lower gastrointestinal endoscopy (LGIE) is of clinical importance. Detecting adenomatous polyps early in the adenoma-carcinoma sequence can halt disease progression, enabling treatment at a favourable stage. High definition colonoscopy (HDC) has been used in our hospital alongside standard definition equipment since 2011. We aim to determine what affect the use of HDC has on PDR. Post-hoc analysis of a prospectively maintained database on all patients undergoing LGIE was performed (01/01/2012-31/12/2015), n = 15,448. Analysis tested the primary outcome of HD's effect on PDR across LGIE and secondary outcome stratified this by endoscopist group (Physician (PE), Surgeon (SE) and Nurse Endoscopist (NE)). Of 15,448 patients, 1353 underwent HDC. Unmatched analysis showed PDR increased by 5.3% in this group (p < 0.001). Matched analysis considered 2288 patients from the total cohort (1144 HDC) and showed an increase of 1% in PDR with HDC (p = 0.578). Further unmatched analysis stratified by endoscopist groups showed a PDR increase of 1.8% (p = 0.375), 5.4% (p = 0.008) and 4.6% (p = 0.021) by PE, SE and NE respectively. Matched analysis demonstrated an increase of 1% (p = 0.734) and 1.5% (p = 0.701) amongst PE and NE, with a decrease of 0.6% (p = 0.883) by SE. The introduction of HDC increased PDR across all LGIE in our hospital, though this was not clinically significant. This marginal benefit was present across all endoscopist groups with no group benefiting over another in matched analysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 18% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 18% |
| Spain | 1 | 9% |
| Brazil | 1 | 9% |
| India | 1 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 3 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 36% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 27% |
| Scientists | 2 | 18% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 18% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 12 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 3 | 25% |
| Librarian | 2 | 17% |
| Other | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 8% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 42% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 14 November 2017.
All research outputs
#5,218,084
of 24,615,420 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#861
of 6,601 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,782
of 334,681 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#31
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,615,420 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,601 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
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 334,681 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.