Quality measures improving endoscopic screening of colorectal cancer: a review of the literature

References

• Fitzmaurice C, Dicker D, Pain A et al. Global burden of disease cancer collaboration. The global burden of cancer 2013. JAMA Oncol. 2015 Jul;1:505–527.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65:87.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [cited 2018 Dec]. Available from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. Minnesota Colon Cancer Control Study. N Engl J Med. 1993 May 13;328:1365–1371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maida M, Macaluso FS, Ianiro G, et al. Screening of colorectal cancer: present and future. Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2017 Oct 12;17:1131–1146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ESGE, Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. United European Gastroenterol J. 2017 Apr;5:309–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain D, Goyal A, Zavala S. Predicting colonoscopy time: a quality improvement initiative. Clin Endosc. 2016;49:555–559.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moritz V, Holme O, Leblanc M, et al. An explorative study from the Norwegian Quality Register Gastronet comparing self-estimated versus registered quality in colonoscopy performance. Endosc Int Open. 2016;4:E326–E332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan C, Di Giulio E, Marmo R, et al. Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2011;20:279–286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gimeno Garcia AZ, Gonzalez Y, Quintero E, et al. Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study. Endoscopy. 2012;44:32–37.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mangualde J, Cremers MI, Vieira AM, et al. Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;3:195–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ASGE, Cohen J, Pike IM. Defining and measuring quality in endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015 Jan;81:1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader JP, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy. 2009;41:240–246.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: recommendations for physicians and patients from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2017 Jul;153:307–323.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• [cited 2017 July]. Available from: http://www.kolorektum.cz/res/file/guidelines/CRC-screening-guidelines-EC-2011-02-03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2013 Oct;45:842–851.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc. 2003 Jul;58:76–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lebwohl B, Kastrinos F, Glick M, et al. The impact of suboptimal bowel preparation on adenoma miss rates and the factors associated with early repeat colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1207–1214.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaelli F, Meucci G, Sgroi G, et al.; Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO). Technical performance of colonoscopy: the key role of sedation/analgesia and other quality indicators. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008 May;103:1122–1130.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut. 2012;61:1050–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370:1298–1306.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee YM, Huh KC. Clinical and biological features of interval colorectal cancer. Clin Endosc. 2017 May;50:254–260.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al. Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:65–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2005 Mar;61:378–848. Choski RV, Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1197–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Menees SB, Elliott E, Govani S, et al. The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:148–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Jul;97:1696–1700.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing [abstract]. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:2667.
   Google Scholar
• Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2004;59:482–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calderwood AH, Schroy PC 3rd, Lieberman DA, et al. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80:269–276.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:686–692.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, et al. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:620–625.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halphen M, Heresbach D, Gruss HJ, et al. Validation of the Harefield Cleansing Scale: a tool for the evaluation of bowel cleansing quality in both research and clinical practice. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;78:121–131.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerard DFD, Raiser M, Holden J, et al. Validation of a new bowel preparation scale for measuring colon cleansing for colonoscopy: the Chicago bowel preparation scale. Clin Transl Gastroenterol. 2013;4:1–11.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A, et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111:197–204.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143:844–857.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim YJ, Hong SJ. What is the best strategy for successful bowel preparation under special condition? World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20:2741–2745.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Voiosu T, Voiosu A, Voiosu R. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: state of the art. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2016;32:382–386.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bechtold ML, Mir F, Puli SR, et al. Optimizing bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a guide to enhance quality of visualization. Ann Gastroenterol. 2016;29:137–146.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seo EH, Kim TO, Park, M.J. et al. Optimal preparation-to-colonoscopy interval in split-dose PEG bowel preparation determines satisfactory bowel preparation quality: an observational prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:583–590.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marmo R, Rotondano G, Riccio G, et al. Effective bowel cleansing before colonoscopy: a randomized study of split-dosage versus non-split dosage regimens of high-volume versus low-volume polyethylene glycol solutions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;72:313–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eun CS, Han DS, Hyun YS, et al. The timing of bowel preparation is more important than the timing of colonoscopy in determining the quality of bowel cleansing. Dig Dis Sci. 2011;56:539–544.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddiqui AA, Yang K, Spechler SJ, et al. Duration of the interval between the completion of bowel preparation and the start of colonoscopy predicts bowel-preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69:700–706.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex DK. Optimal bowel preparation–a practical guide for clinicians. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Jul;11:419–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hookey LC, Depew WT, Vanner SJ. Combined low volume polyethylene glycol solution plus stimulant laxatives versus standard volume polyethylene glycol solution: a prospective, randomized study of colon cleansing before colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006;20:101–105.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharma VK, Chockalingham SK, Ugheoke EA, et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled comparison of the use of polyethylene glycol electrolyte lavage solution in four-liter versus two-liter volumes and pretreatment with either magnesium citrate or bisacodyl for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;47:167–171.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiPalma JA, Wolff BG, Meagher A, et al. Comparison of reduced volume versus four liters sulfate-free electrolyte lavage solutions for colonoscopy colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98:2187–2191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ness RM, Manam R, Hoen H, et al. Predictors of inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96:1797–1802.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fatima H, Johnson CS, Rex DK. Patients’ description of rectal effluent and quality of bowel preparation at colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71:1244–1252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: ESGE guideline. Endoscopy. 2013;45:142–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilgore TW, Abdinoor AA, Szary NM, et al. Bowel preparation with split-dose polyethylene glycol before colonoscopy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:1240–1245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enestvedt BK, Tofani C, Laine LA, et al. 4-Liter split-dose polyethylene glycol is superior to other bowel preparations, based on systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:1225–1231.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu L, Cao Y, Liao C, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2011;46:227–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassan C, Fuccio L, Bruno M, et al. A predictive model identifies patients most likely to have inadequate bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;10:501–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borg BB, Gupta NK, Zuckerman GR, et al. Impact of obesity on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;7:670–675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verma S, Fogel J, Beyda DJ, et al. Chronic methadone use, poor bowel visualization and failed colonoscopy: a preliminary study. World J Gastroenterol. 2012;18:4350–4356.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex D. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: entering an era of increased expectations for efficacy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:458–462.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schreiber S, Baumgart DC, Drenth JPH, et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus sodium picosulfate with magnesium citrate: a randomized phase 3 trial.
   Google Scholar
• Bisschops R, Manning J, Clayton LB, et al. Colon cleansing efficacy and safety with 1 L NER1006 versus 2 L polyethylene glycol + ascorbate: a randomized phase 3 trial.
   Google Scholar
• DeMicco MP, Clayton LB, Pilot J, et al. Novel 1 L polyethylene glycol-based bowel preparation NER1006 for overall and right-sided colon cleansing: a randomized controlled phase 3 trial versus trisulfate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018;87:677–687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas-Gibson S. The caecum or not the caecum? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Jun;20:500–502.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowles CJA, Leicester R, Swarbrick E et al. Intercollegiate—BSG National Colonoscopy Audit: methods used to identify the caecum and caecal intubation rate. Gut. 2001;48:A10–A11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cirocco WC, Rusin LC. Confirmation of cecal intubation during colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum. 1995;38:402–406.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas-Gibson S, Thapar C, Shah SG, et al. Colonoscopy at a combined district general hospital and specialist endoscopy unit: lessons from 505 consecutive examinations. J R Soc Med. 2002;95:194–197.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thoufeeq MH, Rembacken BJ. Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection. Endosc Int Open. 2015 Dec;3:E629–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah HA, Paszat LF, Saskin R, et al. Factors associated with incomplete colonoscopy: a population-based study. Gastroenterology. 2007;132:2297–2303.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta M, Holub JL, Eisen G. Do indication and demographics for colonoscopy affect completion? A large national database evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010 May;22:620–627.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsu CM, Lin WP, Su MY, et al. Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27:76–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pullens HJ, Siersema PD. Quality indicators for colonoscopy: current insights and caveats. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Dec 16;6:571–583.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hancock KS, Mascarenhas R, Lieberman D. What can we do to optimize colonoscopy and how effective can we be? Curr Gastroenterol Rep. 2016 Jun;18:27.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wu J, Hu B. The role of carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2012 Feb;44:128–136.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luo DJ, Hui AJ, Yan KK, et al. A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75:484–490.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bannert C, Reinhart K, Dunkler D, et al. Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1837–1848.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 14;355:2533–2541.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2015;149:952–957.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:417–426.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy. 2013;45:20–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362:1795–1803.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al. Increased rate of adenoma detection associates with reduced risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:98–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorzi M, Senore C, Da Re F, et al. Detection rate and predictive factors of sessile serrated polyps in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme with immunochemical faecal occult blood test: the EQuIPE study (Evaluating Quality Indicators of the Performance of Endoscopy). Gut. 2017;66:1233–1240.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Kolacz A, et al. Comparison of quality measures for detection of neoplasia at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016;83:AB527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams JE, Le TD, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate as a quality measure for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:498–506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A, et al. Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73:493–497.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gohel TD, Burke CA, Lankaala P, et al. Polypectomy rate: a surrogate for adenoma detection rate varies by colon segment, gender, and endoscopist. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12:1137–1142.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Atia MA, Patel NC, Ratuapli SK, et al. Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82:370–375.e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boroff ES, Gurudu SR, Hentz JG, et al. Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108:993–999.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ, et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut. 2014;63:957–963.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut. 2014;63:949–956.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee CK, Shim JJ, Jang JY. Cold snare polypectomy vs. Cold forceps polypectomy using double-biopsy technique for removal of diminutive colorectal polyps: a prospective randomized study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013 Oct;108:1593–1600.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H, et al. Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:741–747.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ponugoti PL, Cummings OW, Rex DK. Risk of cancer in small and diminutive colorectal polyps. Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Jan;49:34–37.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ignjatovic A, East JE, Suzuki N, et al. Optical diagnosis of small colorectal polyps at routine colonoscopy (Detect InSpect ChAracterise Resect and Discard; DISCARD trial): a prospective cohort study. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:1171–1178.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamiński MF, Hassan C, Bisschops R, et al. Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy. 2014;46:435–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI, et al. Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68:S3– S47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M, et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1182–1199.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al. Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology. 2011;140:1909–1918.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASGE Technology Committee, Kethu SR, Banerjee S, Desilets D, et al. Endoscopic tattooing. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Oct;72:681–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waye JD, Thomas-Gibson S. How I do colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Mar;87:621–624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex DK. Water exchange vswater immersion during colonoscope insertion. . Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Sep;109:1401–1403.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ASGE Technology Committee, Lo SK, Fujii-Lau LL, Enestvedt BK, et al. The use of carbon dioxide in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2016 May;83:857–865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sajid MS, Caswell J, Bhatti MI, et al. Carbon dioxide insufflation vs conventional air insufflation for colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials. Colorectal Dis. 2015;17:111–123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chandran S, Parker F, Vaughan R, et al. Right-sided adenoma detection with retroflexion versus forward-view colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81:608–613.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kushnir VM, Oh YS, Hollander T, et al. Impact of retroflexion vs. second forward view examination of the right colon on adenoma detection: a comparison study. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110:415–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrison M, Singh N, Rex DK. Impact of proximal colon retroflexion on adenoma miss rates. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004 Mar;99:519–522.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hewett DG, Rex DK. Miss rate of right-sided colon examination during colonoscopy defined by retroflexion: an observational study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011 Aug;74:246–252.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen J, Grunwald D, Grossberg LB, et al. The effect of right colon retroflexion on adenoma detection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51:818–824.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ai X, Qiao W, Han Z, et al. Results of a second examination of the right side of the colon in screening and surveillance colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;30:181–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rex DK, Vemulapalli KC. Retroflexion in colonoscopy: why? Where? When? How? What value? Gastroenterology. 2013 May;144:882–883.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hanson JM, Atkin WS, Cunliffe WJ, et al. Rectal retroflexion: an essential part of lower gastrointestinal endoscopic examination. Dis Colon Rectum. 2001;44:1706–1708.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Varadarajulu S, Ramsey WH. Utility of retroflexion in lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2001 Mar;32:235–237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cutler AF, Pop A. Fifteen years later: colonoscopic retroflexion revisited. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Jun;94:1537–1538.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saad A, Rex DK. Routine rectal retroflexion during colonoscopy has a low yield for neoplasia. World J Gastroenterol. 2008 Nov 14;14:6503–6505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee TJ, Nair S, Beintaris I, et al. Recent advances in colonoscopy. F1000Res. 2016 Mar 11;5:328. pii: F1000 Faculty Rev-328.
   Google Scholar
• ASGE Training Committee, Adler DG, Bakis G, Coyle WJ, et al. Principles of training in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012 Feb;75:231–235.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar