Complementary Effect of the Proportion of Overspeed Frames of Withdrawal and Withdrawal Time on Reflecting Colonoscopy Quality: A Retrospective, Observational Study

被引:3
作者
Gong, Rongrong [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Yao, Liwen [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhang, Lihui [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Li, Xun [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhang, Jun [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Li, Jiao [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Jiang, Xiaoda [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhao, Yu [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wang, Junxiao [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhang, Chenxia [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Wu, Huiling [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Lu, Zihua [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Chen, Mingkai [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Yu, Honggang [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Wuhan Univ, Renmin Hosp, Dept Gastroenterol, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[2] Wuhan Univ, Renmin Hosp, Hubei Prov Clin Res Ctr Digest Dis Minimally Inv, Wuhan, Peoples R China
[3] Wuhan Univ, Renmin Hosp, Key Lab Hubei Prov Digest Syst Dis, Wuhan, Peoples R China
关键词
colonoscopy; artificial intelligence; quality control; COMPUTER-AIDED DETECTION; ADENOMA DETECTION; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; CANCER STATISTICS; SYSTEM; NEOPLASIA; POLYP;
D O I
10.14309/ctg.0000000000000566
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
INTRODUCTION: Constructing quality indicators that reflect the defect of colonoscopy operation for quality audit and feedback is very important. Previously, we have established a real-time withdrawal speed monitoring system to control withdrawal speed below the safe speed. We aimed to explore the relationship between the proportion of overspeed frames (POF) of withdrawal and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) and to conjointly analyze the influence of POF and withdrawal time on ADR to evaluate the feasibility of POF combined with withdrawal time as a quality control indicator. METHODS: The POF was defined as the proportion of frames with instantaneous speed >= 44 in the whole colonoscopy video. First, we developed a system for the POF of withdrawal based on a perceptual hashing algorithm. Next, we retrospectively collected 1,804 colonoscopy videos to explore the relationship between POF and ADR. According to withdrawal time and POF cutoff, we conducted a complementary analysis on the effects of POF and withdrawal time on ADR. RESULTS: There was an inverse correlation between the POF and ADR (Pearson correlation coefficient -0.836). When withdrawal time was >6 minutes, the ADR of the POF <= 10% was significantly higher than that of POF >10% (25.30% vs 16.50%; odds ratio 0.463, 95% confidence interval 0.296-0.724, P < 0.01). When the POF was <= 10%, theADRofwithdrawal time >6 minutes was higher than that of withdrawal time <= 6minutes (25.30% vs 21.14%; odds ratio 0.877, 95% confidence interval 0.667-1.153, P= 0.35). DISCUSSION: The POF was strongly correlated with ADR. The combined assessment of the POF and withdrawal time has profound significance for colonoscopy quality control.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 33 条
  • [1] Factors determining the quality of screening colonoscopy: a prospective study on adenoma detection rates, from 12 134 examinations (Berlin colonoscopy project 3, BECOP-3)
    Adler, Andreas
    Wegscheider, Karl
    Lieberman, David
    Aminalai, Alireza
    Aschenbeck, Jens
    Drossel, Rolf
    Mayr, Michael
    Mross, Michael
    Scheel, Mathias
    Schroeder, Andreas
    Gerber, Katharina
    Stange, Gabriela
    Roll, Stephanie
    Gauger, Ulrich
    Wiedenmann, Bertram
    Altenhofen, Lutz
    Rosch, Thomas
    [J]. GUT, 2013, 62 (02) : 236 - 241
  • [2] Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy
    Barclay, Robert L.
    Vicari, Joseph J.
    Doughty, Andrea S.
    Johanson, John F.
    Greenlaw, Roger L.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2006, 355 (24) : 2533 - 2541
  • [3] Variation in Colonoscopic Technique and Adenoma Detection Rates at an Academic Gastroenterology Unit
    Benson, Mark E.
    Reichelderfer, Mark
    Said, Adnan
    Gaumnitz, Eric A.
    Pfau, Patrick R.
    [J]. DIGESTIVE DISEASES AND SCIENCES, 2010, 55 (01) : 166 - 171
  • [4] A comparison of 9-min colonoscopy withdrawal time and 6-min colonoscopy withdrawal time: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Bhurwal, Abhishek
    Rattan, Puru
    Sarkar, Avik
    Patel, Anish
    Haroon, Shahid
    Gjeorgjievski, Mihajlo
    Bansal, Vikas
    Mutneja, Hemant
    [J]. JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY AND HEPATOLOGY, 2021, 36 (12) : 3260 - 3267
  • [5] Screening for Colorectal Cancer US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
    Bibbins-Domingo, Kirsten
    Grossman, David C.
    Curry, Susan J.
    Davidson, Karina W.
    Epling, John W., Jr.
    Garcia, Francisco A. R.
    Gillman, Matthew W.
    Harper, Diane M.
    Kemper, Alex R.
    Krist, Alex H.
    Kurth, Ann E.
    Landefeld, C. Seth
    Mangione, Carol M.
    Owens, Douglas K.
    Phillips, William R.
    Phipps, Maureen G.
    Pignone, Michael P.
    Siu, Albert L.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2016, 315 (23): : 2564 - 2575
  • [6] A primer on artificial intelligence and its application to endoscopy
    Chahal, Daljeet
    Byrne, Michael F.
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2020, 92 (04) : 813 - +
  • [7] Association of Colonoscopy Adenoma Findings With Long-term Colorectal Cancer Incidence
    Click, Benjamin
    Pinsky, Paul F.
    Hickey, Tom
    Doroudi, Maryam
    Schoen, Robert E.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2018, 319 (19): : 2021 - 2031
  • [8] Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: An introduction
    Faigel, DO
    Pike, IM
    Baron, TH
    Chak, A
    Cohen, J
    Deal, SE
    Hoffman, B
    Jacobson, BC
    Mergener, K
    Petersen, BT
    Petrini, JL
    Rex, DK
    Safdi, MA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2006, 101 (04) : 866 - 872
  • [9] Robust image hashing for content identification through contrastive self-supervised learning
    Fonseca-Bustos, Jesus
    Alejandra Ramirez-Gutierrez, Kelsey
    Feregrino-Uribe, Claudia
    [J]. NEURAL NETWORKS, 2022, 156 : 81 - 94
  • [10] Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study
    Froehlich, F
    Wietlisbach, V
    Gonvers, JJ
    Burnand, B
    Vader, JP
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 2005, 61 (03) : 378 - 384