Determinants of high sessile serrated lesion detection: Role of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy quality indicators

Table 1 Recent Australian studies reporting the sessile serrated lesion detection and similar metrics

Ref.	Study focus	Number of colonoscopies	Colonoscopist		SSL-DR
			Specialty	Number	Rate	Value
Zhang et al[1], 2023	SSLDRs prevalence	21903	NR	NR	SSL-DR	24.0%
Haga et al[2], 2022	Rural QI performance	1674	GP	3	CSSDR	14.2%
					PSDR	16.0%
Watson et al[10], 2023	Rural QI performance	3497	GS	24	CSSDR	5.4%
			GS Reg	12
Wong et al[11], 2020	Withdrawal times	1579	GS	NR	SSL-DR	5.4%
Zorron Cheng Tao Pu et al[21], 2019	Specialty and time of day	2657	GE	9	SSL-DR	7.1%
			Surgeons	6		4.9%
Wong et al[36], 2017	Age in years, < 50 vs ≥ 50	2013	NR	NR	SSL-DR	3.1%
Bettington et al[17], 2017	SSL prevalence	707	GE	1	SSL-DR	19.8%
Kumbhari et al[25], 2013	Caucasian vs Asian	1000	GE	1	SSL-DR	5.3%

Rates are reported for all indications. For simplicity, only the lead author is listed in the “Study” column. In some Australian studies, the sessile serrated lesion (SSL) detection rate was not always directly reported, and a review of the number of colonoscopies and patients with SSLs was required. Some studies reported alternative metrics, such as the clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate and proximal serrated polyp detection rate, and the SSL detection rate could not be determined from supplementary tables. SSLDs: Sessile serrated lesion detection rate; NR: Not reported; QI: Quality indicator; GP: General practitioner; GE: Gastroenterologists; GS: General surgeons; GS Reg: General surgical registrars; SSL-DR: Sessile serrated lesion detection rate; CSSDR: Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rate; PSDR: Proximal serrated polyp detection rate.