哪一个是更好的息肉检测指标:腺瘤每结肠镜检查或腺瘤检出率?仿真建模研究。

IF 2.2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Endoscopy International Open Pub Date : 2024-11-28 eCollection Date: 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1055/a-2417-6248
Todd MacKenzie, Sikai Xiao, William H Hisey, Christina M Robinson, Lynn Butterly, Joseph C Anderson
{"title":"哪一个是更好的息肉检测指标:腺瘤每结肠镜检查或腺瘤检出率?仿真建模研究。","authors":"Todd MacKenzie, Sikai Xiao, William H Hisey, Christina M Robinson, Lynn Butterly, Joseph C Anderson","doi":"10.1055/a-2417-6248","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> We compared the ability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) to assess endoscopist detection, using statistical principles and simulations. <b>Patients and methods</b> We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients to compare the ability of ADR versus APC for capturing true endoscopist ability (TEA). We compared these rates with and without adjustment for patient and exam factors using multivariable models, and adjustment for imprecision due to low volume using empirical Bayes (shrinkage). Power calculations were used to compare the ability of ADR and APC to distinguish higher from lower rates over two time periods for an endoscopist. <b>Results</b> APC and ADR had similar discriminatory ability for assessing TEA. This increased with higher volumes and after adjusting for risk factors and low volume using shrinkage. Higher APC and ADRs had higher power for comparing endoscopist detection over two time periods, but APC was superior to ADR. For example, there was 29% power to distinguish APCs (n = 200 colonoscopies) 0.10 from 0.15, similar to the power (28%) to distinguish corresponding ADRs: 10% and 14%. However, at same volume (n = 200), the power to distinguish higher APC rates (0.50 vs.0.75) was greater (89%) than the power (78%) for corresponding ADRs (39% vs.53%). <b>Conclusions</b> Adjusting for patient and exam factors and/or using shrinkage techniques for lower-volume endoscopists can increase the correlation between TEA for both ADR and APC. For higher detection rates, APC offers more power than ADR in distinguishing differences in detection ability.</p>","PeriodicalId":11671,"journal":{"name":"Endoscopy International Open","volume":"12 11","pages":"E1366-E1373"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11604309/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Which is the better polyp detection metric: adenomas per colonoscopy or adenoma detection rate? A simulation modeling study.\",\"authors\":\"Todd MacKenzie, Sikai Xiao, William H Hisey, Christina M Robinson, Lynn Butterly, Joseph C Anderson\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2417-6248\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background and study aims</b> We compared the ability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) to assess endoscopist detection, using statistical principles and simulations. <b>Patients and methods</b> We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients to compare the ability of ADR versus APC for capturing true endoscopist ability (TEA). We compared these rates with and without adjustment for patient and exam factors using multivariable models, and adjustment for imprecision due to low volume using empirical Bayes (shrinkage). Power calculations were used to compare the ability of ADR and APC to distinguish higher from lower rates over two time periods for an endoscopist. <b>Results</b> APC and ADR had similar discriminatory ability for assessing TEA. This increased with higher volumes and after adjusting for risk factors and low volume using shrinkage. Higher APC and ADRs had higher power for comparing endoscopist detection over two time periods, but APC was superior to ADR. For example, there was 29% power to distinguish APCs (n = 200 colonoscopies) 0.10 from 0.15, similar to the power (28%) to distinguish corresponding ADRs: 10% and 14%. However, at same volume (n = 200), the power to distinguish higher APC rates (0.50 vs.0.75) was greater (89%) than the power (78%) for corresponding ADRs (39% vs.53%). <b>Conclusions</b> Adjusting for patient and exam factors and/or using shrinkage techniques for lower-volume endoscopists can increase the correlation between TEA for both ADR and APC. For higher detection rates, APC offers more power than ADR in distinguishing differences in detection ability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11671,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"volume\":\"12 11\",\"pages\":\"E1366-E1373\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11604309/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Endoscopy International Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2417-6248\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endoscopy International Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2417-6248","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和研究目的我们采用统计学原理和模拟,比较了腺瘤检出率(ADR)和腺瘤每结肠镜检查(APC)评估内镜检查的能力。患者和方法我们模拟了一组内窥镜医师和患者,比较ADR与APC在捕捉真正内窥镜医师能力(TEA)方面的能力。我们使用多变量模型对患者和检查因素进行了调整和不进行调整,并使用经验贝叶斯(收缩)对低容量导致的不精确进行了调整。使用功率计算来比较内窥镜医师在两个时间段内ADR和APC区分较高和较低发生率的能力。结果APC与ADR对TEA的鉴别能力相似。在调整了风险因素和使用收缩的低容量后,随着容量的增加,这一比例增加。较高的APC和ADR在比较两个时间段内窥镜检查结果时具有较高的优势,但APC优于ADR。例如,区分APCs (n = 200结肠镜检查)0.10和0.15的概率为29%,与区分相应adr的概率(28%)相似:10%和14%。然而,在相同体积(n = 200)下,区分较高APC率(0.50 vs.0.75)的能力(89%)大于相应adr (39% vs.53%)的能力(78%)。结论调整患者和检查因素和/或对小容量内窥镜医师使用收缩技术可以增加TEA与ADR和APC的相关性。对于更高的检出率,APC在区分检测能力差异方面比ADR更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Which is the better polyp detection metric: adenomas per colonoscopy or adenoma detection rate? A simulation modeling study.

Background and study aims We compared the ability of adenoma detection rate (ADR) and adenoma per colonoscopy (APC) to assess endoscopist detection, using statistical principles and simulations. Patients and methods We simulated a population of endoscopists and patients to compare the ability of ADR versus APC for capturing true endoscopist ability (TEA). We compared these rates with and without adjustment for patient and exam factors using multivariable models, and adjustment for imprecision due to low volume using empirical Bayes (shrinkage). Power calculations were used to compare the ability of ADR and APC to distinguish higher from lower rates over two time periods for an endoscopist. Results APC and ADR had similar discriminatory ability for assessing TEA. This increased with higher volumes and after adjusting for risk factors and low volume using shrinkage. Higher APC and ADRs had higher power for comparing endoscopist detection over two time periods, but APC was superior to ADR. For example, there was 29% power to distinguish APCs (n = 200 colonoscopies) 0.10 from 0.15, similar to the power (28%) to distinguish corresponding ADRs: 10% and 14%. However, at same volume (n = 200), the power to distinguish higher APC rates (0.50 vs.0.75) was greater (89%) than the power (78%) for corresponding ADRs (39% vs.53%). Conclusions Adjusting for patient and exam factors and/or using shrinkage techniques for lower-volume endoscopists can increase the correlation between TEA for both ADR and APC. For higher detection rates, APC offers more power than ADR in distinguishing differences in detection ability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Endoscopy International Open
Endoscopy International Open GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
自引率
3.80%
发文量
270
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信