The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90%); 2 cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90%); 3 adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25%); 4 appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80%); 5 complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures.

Cancer Registry of Norway Oslo Norway

Center for Health Technology and Services Research University of Porto Porto Portugal

Centre for Technology Enabled Research Coventry University Coventry UK

CPO Piemonte AOU Città della Salute e della Scienza Turin Italy

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam The Netherlands

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology University Hospital Leuven and KU Leuven Leuven Belgium

Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology University of Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands

Department of Gastroenterology Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Gloucestershire UK

Department of Gastroenterology Hepatology and Oncology Medical Center for Postgraduate Education Warsaw Poland

Department of Gastroenterology University Hospital of North Tees Stockton on Tees UK

Department of Gastroenterology Vestfold Hospital Trust Tønsberg Norway

Department of Health Management and Health Economics University of Oslo Oslo Norway

Department of Interdisciplinary Endoscopy University Hospital Hamburg Eppendorf Hamburg Germany

Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology Petz Aladar County and Teaching Hospital Györ Hungary

Department of Internal Medicine Joseph's Hospital Warendorf Germany

Department of Internal Medicine Military University Hospital Prague Czech Republic

Department of Medicine 3 Medical University of Vienna Vienna Austria

Department of Research and Development Telemark Hospital Skien Norway

Department of Transplantation Medicine Oslo University Hospital Oslo Norway

Departments of Gastroenterological Oncology and Cancer Prevention The Maria Sklodowska Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology Warsaw Poland

Digestive Endoscopy Unit Agostino Gemelli University Hospital Rome Italy

Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust Cheltenham General Hospital Cheltenham UK

Karolinska Institute and Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm Sweden

Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital Rome Italy

School of Medicine Durham University Durham UK

Servicio de Gastroenterologia Instituto Portugues de Oncologia Francisco Gentil Porto Portugal

South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust South Tyneside UK

Translational Gastroenterology Unit John Radcliffe Hospital Oxford UK

Unidad de Gastroenterologia Hospital General Universitario de Alicante Alicante Spain

Wolfson Unit for Endoscopy St Mark's Hospital Harrow and Imperial College London UK

See more in PubMed

Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R, et al. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81–89. PubMed

Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A, et al. Quality assurance and colonoscopy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 522–527. PubMed

Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S, et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665–667. PubMed PMC

Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S, et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296–1308. PubMed

Valori R, Rey JF, Atkin WS, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition. Quality assurance in endoscopy in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. Endoscopy 2012; 44(Suppl 3): SE88–SE105. PubMed

Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann JF, et al. Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957–968. PubMed

Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873–885. PubMed

Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E, et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843–864. PubMed

Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E, et al. Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy quality improvement initiative. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 629–656. PubMed PMC

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–926. PubMed PMC

Do A, Weinberg J, Kakkar A, et al. Reliability of adenoma detection rate is based on procedural volume. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 376–380. PubMed

Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E, et al. Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 172–176. PubMed PMC

Hassan C, Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, et al. Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 142–150. PubMed

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; 61: 378–384. PubMed

Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al. Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696–1700. PubMed

Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC. Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686–692. PubMed PMC

Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482–486. PubMed

Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al. A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346–352. PubMed

Parmar R, Martel M, Rostom A, et al. Validated scales for colon cleansing: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 197–205. PubMed

Clark BT, Protiva P, Nagar A, et al. Quantification of adequate bowel preparation for screening or surveillance colonoscopy in men. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 396–405; quiz e14–e15. PubMed PMC

Calderwood AH, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, et al. Validity of a web-based educational program to disseminate a standardized bowel preparation rating scale. J Clin Gastroenterol 2014; 48: 856–861. PubMed PMC

Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Loberg M, et al. Population-based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 894–902. PubMed PMC

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 PMC

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

Zorzi M, Valiante F, Germana B, et al. Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 223–231. PubMed

Radaelli F, Paggi S, Hassan C, et al. Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 270–277. PubMed

Whitson MJ, Bodian CA, Aisenberg J, et al. Is production pressure jeopardizing the quality of colonoscopy? A survey of U.S. endoscopists’ practices and perceptions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 641–648. PubMed

Condiotte AM, Robertson DJ, Blodgett C, et al. “Running late” and adenoma detection – is there an association? Endoscopy 2015; 47: 232–237. PubMed

Jain D, Goyal A, Zavala S. Predicting colonoscopy time: a quality improvement initiative. Clin Endosc 2016; 49: 555–559. PubMed PMC

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 PMC

Hassan C, Di Giulio E, Marmo R, et al. Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointest Liver Dis 2011; 20: 279–286. PubMed

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 PMC

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. PubMed PMC

Carrion S, Marin I, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy indications according to the new EPAGE II criteria. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 33: 484–489. PubMed

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Appropriate use of gastrointestinal endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 831–837. PubMed

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

Eskeland SL, Dalen E, Sponheim J, et al. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II guidelines help in selecting and prioritizing patients referred to colonoscopy: a quality control study. Scand J Gastroenterol 2014; 49: 492–500. PubMed

Thoufeeq MH, Rembacken BJ. Meticulous cecal image documentation at colonoscopy is associated with improved polyp detection. Endosc Int Open 2015; 3: E629–E633. PubMed PMC

Neilson LJ, Bevan R, Panter S, et al. Terminal ileal intubation and biopsy in routine colonoscopy practice. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 9: 567–574. PubMed

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

Lee TJ, Rutter MD, Blanks RG, et al. Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Gut 2012; 61: 1050–1057. PubMed

Belderbos TD, Grobbee EJ, van Oijen MG, et al. Comparison of cecal intubation and adenoma detection between hospitals can provide incentives to improve quality of colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 703–709. PubMed

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. Epub ahead of print 19 February 2016. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310587. PubMed

Jover R, Zapater P, Polania E, et al. Modifiable endoscopic factors that influence the adenoma detection rate in colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 381–389. PubMed

Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, et al. The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242–249. PubMed

Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: 1795–1803. PubMed

Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1298–1306. PubMed PMC

Van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al. Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343–350. PubMed

Rogal SS, Pinsky PF, Schoen RE. Relationship between detection of adenomas by flexible sigmoidoscopy and interval distal colorectal cancer. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 73–78. PubMed PMC

Kaminski MF, Anderson J, Valori R, et al. Leadership training to improve adenoma detection rate in screening colonoscopy: a randomised trial. Gut 2016; 65: 616–624. PubMed PMC

Brenner H, Altenhofen L, Kretschmann J, et al. Trends in adenoma detection rates during the first 10 years of the German screening colonoscopy program. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 356–366. PubMed

Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, et al. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 219–227. PubMed

Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR. Can we improve adenoma detection rates? A systematic review of intervention studies. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 656–665. PubMed

Kaminski MF, Rupinski M, Wieszczy P, et al. Effect of adenoma detection rate improvement on the risk of colorectal cancer and death. Gastroenterology 2015; 148: S189–S189.

Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Kolacz A, et al. Comparison of quality measures for detection of neoplasia at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: AB527–AB527.

Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al. Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533–2541. PubMed

Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK, et al. Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy - a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476–481. PubMed

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

Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al. Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time > or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892–1898. PubMed

Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL. Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091–1098. PubMed

Vavricka SR, Sulz MC, Degen L, et al. Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 256–262. PubMed

Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR, et al. Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128–134. PubMed

Rutter MD, Chilton A, Patnick J. Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal times remains important. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 73–73. PubMed

Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q, et al. Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 390–394. PubMed

Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO. Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 576–582. PubMed PMC

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

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. PubMed

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

Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al. Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949–956. PubMed PMC

Le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ, et al. Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957–963. PubMed

Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP, et al. Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy-results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74–80. PubMed

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

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; 108: 1593–1600. PubMed

Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, et al. Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: are we adhering to the guidelines? Endoscopy 2015; 47: 898–902. PubMed

Din S, Ball AJ, Taylor E, et al. Polypectomy practices of sub-centimeter polyps in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 3224–3230. PubMed

Kudo S, Lambert R, Allen JI, et al. Nonpolypoid neoplastic lesions of the colorectal mucosa. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: S3–S47. PubMed

Lambert R, Kudo SE, Vieth M, et al. Pragmatic classification of superficial neoplastic colorectal lesions. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 1182–1199. PubMed

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

Wang R, Wang Y, Li D, et al. Application of carbon nanoparticles to mark locations for re-inspection after colonic polypectomy. Surg Endosc 2016; 30: 1530–1533. PubMed

Park JW, Sohn DK, Hong CW, et al. The usefulness of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing using a saline test injection method with prepackaged sterile India ink for localization in laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Endosc 2008; 22: 501–505. PubMed

Bartels SA, van der Zaag ES, Dekker E, et al. The effect of colonoscopic tattooing on lymph node retrieval and sentinel lymph node mapping. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 76: 793–800. PubMed

Kang J, Park HS, Kim IK, et al. Effect of preoperative colonoscopic tattooing on lymph node harvest in T1 colorectal cancer. Int J Colorectal Dis 2015; 30: 1349–1355. PubMed

Belderbos TD, Leenders M, Moons LM, et al. Local recurrence after endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 388–402. PubMed

Zafar A, Mustafa M, Chapman M. Colorectal polyps: when should we tattoo? Surg Endosc 2012; 26: 3264–3266. PubMed

Kaminski 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: 435–457. PubMed

Deenadayalu VP, Rex DK. Colon polyp retrieval after cold snaring. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 253–256. PubMed

Ye F, Feng Y, Lin J. Retrieval of colorectal polyps following snare polypectomy: Experience of the multiple-suction technique in 602 cases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2008; 23: 431–436. PubMed

Fernandes C, Pinho R, Ribeiro I, et al. Risk factors for polyp retrieval failure in colonoscopy. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2015; 3: 387–392. PubMed PMC

Komeda Y, Suzuki N, Sarah M, et al. Factors associated with failed polyp retrieval at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 395–400. PubMed

Belderbos TD, van Oijen MG, Moons LM, et al. The “golden retriever” study: improving polyp retrieval rates by providing education and competitive feedback. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 596–601. PubMed

Van Doorn SC, Hazewinkel Y, East JE, et al. Polyp morphology: an interobserver evaluation for the Paris classification among international experts. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 180–187. PubMed

Aziz Aadam A, Wani S, Kahi C, et al. Physician assessment and management of complex colon polyps: a multicenter video-based survey study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1312–1324. PubMed

Soetikno R, Friedland S, Kaltenbach T, et al. Nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 566–576; quiz 588–589. PubMed

Fisher DA, Maple JT, Ben-Menachem T, et al. Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 745–752. PubMed

Levin TR, Zhao W, Conell C, et al. Complications of colonoscopy in an integrated health care delivery system. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 880–886. PubMed

Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, et al. Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899–1906. PubMed

Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, et al. Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 849–857. PubMed

Adler A, Lieberman D, Aminalai A, et al. Data quality of the German screening colonoscopy registry. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 813–818. PubMed

Sarkar S, Geraghty J, Moore AR, et al. A multicentre study to determine the incidence, demographics, aetiology and outcomes of 6-day emergency readmission following day-case endoscopy. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 24: 1438–1446. PubMed

Saraste D, Martling A, Nilsson PJ, et al. Complications after colonoscopy and surgery in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme. J Med Screen 2016; 23: 135–140. PubMed

Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L, et al. Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 166–173. PubMed PMC

Ko CW, Dominitz JA. Complications of colonoscopy: magnitude and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2010; 20: 659–671. PubMed

Reumkens A, Rondagh EJ, Bakker CM, et al. Post-colonoscopy complications: a systematic review, time trends, and meta-analysis of population-based studies. Am J Gastroenterol 2016; 111: 1092–1101. PubMed

Tapper EB, Leffler DA. The Morbidity and Mortality Conference in Gastroenterology and Hepatology: an important cornerstone of patient safety and optimal care. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 19–23. PubMed

McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J. Patients' experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context: a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86: 137–146. PubMed

Denters MJ, Schreuder M, Depla AC, et al. Patients’ perception of colonoscopy: patients with inflammatory bowel disease and irritable bowel syndrome experience the largest burden. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 25: 964–972. PubMed

Pylvanainen K, Kairaluoma M, Mecklin JP. Compliance and satisfaction with long-term surveillance in Finnish HNPCC families. Fam Cancer 2006; 5: 175–178. PubMed

Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al. Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 639–646. PubMed

Wernli KJ, Brenner AT, Rutter CM, et al. Risks associated with anesthesia services during colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2016; 150: 888–894. PubMed PMC

Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, Korfage IJ, et al. Benchmarking patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 462–472. PubMed

De Jonge V, Sint Nicolaas J, Lalor EA, et al. A prospective audit of patient experiences in colonoscopy using the Global Rating Scale: a cohort of 1,187 patients. Can J Gastroenterol 2010; 24: 607–613. PubMed PMC

Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G, et al. The Norwegian Gastronet project: continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481–487. PubMed

Holme O, de Lange T, Stallemo A, et al. Routine vs. on-demand analgesia in colonoscopy: a randomized clinical trial. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 823–828. PubMed

Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Holme O, et al. Time trends in quality indicators of colonoscopy. United Eur Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 110–120. PubMed PMC

Kaminski MF, Kraszewska E, Rupinski M, et al. Design of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program: a randomized health services study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1144–1150. PubMed

Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al. Sustaining the vitality of colonoscopy quality improvement programmes over time. Experience from the Norwegian Gastronet programme. Scand J Gastroenterol 2010; 45: 362–369. PubMed

Ghanouni A, Plumb A, Hewitson P, et al. Patients’ experience of colonoscopy in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 232–240. PubMed

Rostom A, Ross ED, Dube C, et al. Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 255–261. PubMed

Skovlund E, Flaten O. Response measures in the acute treatment of migraine. Cephalalgia 1995; 15: 519–522. discussion 450–451. PubMed

Skovlund E, Bretthauer M, Grotmol T, et al. Sensitivity of pain rating scales in an endoscopy trial. Clin J Pain 2005; 21: 292–296. PubMed

Breivik EK, Bjornsson GA, Skovlund E. A comparison of pain rating scales by sampling from clinical trial data. Clin J Pain 2000; 16: 22–28. PubMed

Cottet V, Jooste V, Fournel I, et al. Long-term risk of colorectal cancer after adenoma removal: a population-based cohort study. Gut 2012; 61: 1180–1186. PubMed

Martinez ME, Baron JA, Lieberman DA, et al. A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy. Gastroenterology 2009; 136: 832–841. PubMed PMC

Loberg M, Kalager M, Holme O, et al. Long-term colorectal-cancer mortality after adenoma removal. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 799–807. PubMed

Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ, et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First edition. Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44(Suppl 3): SE151–SE163. PubMed

Hassan C, Quintero E, Dumonceau JM, et al. Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guideline. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 842–851. PubMed

Van Heijningen EM, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Steyerberg EW, et al. Adherence to surveillance guidelines after removal of colorectal adenomas: a large, community-based study. Gut 2015; 64: 1584–1592. PubMed PMC

Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, et al. The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 33–38. PubMed PMC

Mysliwiec PA, Brown ML, Klabunde CN, et al. Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 264–271. PubMed

Boolchand V, Olds G, Singh J, et al. Colorectal screening after polypectomy: a national survey study of primary care physicians. Ann Intern Med 2006; 145: 654–659. PubMed

Rees C, Ngu WS, Regula J, et al. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy – establishing the key unanswered research questions within gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 1–11. PubMed

Kiefe CI, Allison JJ, Williams OD, et al. Improving quality improvement using achievable benchmarks for physician feedback: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2001; 285: 2871–2879. PubMed