Literature DB >> 11341353

Measuring complete diagnostic evaluation in colorectal cancer screening.

R E Myers1, G Fishbein, T Hyslop, W W Hauck, M Kutch, J R Grana, N Schlackman.   

Abstract

Complete diagnostic evaluation, or CDE (i.e., a colonoscopy or combined barium enema X-ray and flexible sigmoidoscopy) is recommended for individuals who have an abnormal screening fecal occult blood test result. Accurate measures of CDE use are needed in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. This study compares the sensitivity and specificity of different methods for measuring CDE recommendation and performance. We identified 17 primary-care practices with 120 patients who had a positive fecal occult blood test result in a CRC screening program operated by a managed-care organization. Approaches used to measure CDE recommendation and performance included external chart audit (ECA) only; internal chart audit (ICA) only; administrative data review (ADR) of electronic claims data; ICA plus ADR; and ECA plus ADR (the "gold standard"). Sensitivity and specificity of each method were assessed relative to CDE recommendation and performance as measured by ECA plus ADR. For CDE recommendation, sensitivity measures were ECA only, 0.926; ICA only, 0.790; ADR only, 0.617; and ICA plus ADR, 0.901. The specificity of each method for CDE recommendation was no less than 0.95. In terms of CDE performance, sensitivity measures were ECA only, 0.877; ICA only, 0.790; ADR only, 0.877; and ICA plus ADR, 0.965. The specificity of each method for CDE performance was 1.0. The ICA-plus-ADR method was a highly sensitive and specific measure of CDE use. This method should be considered in situations that involve primary-care physician follow-up of patients with abnormal CRC screening test results.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11341353

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev        ISSN: 0361-090X


  7 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Effectiveness of complete diagnostic examination in clinical practice settings.

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Cancer Detect Prev       Date:  2006-11-17

3.  Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test.

Authors:  Barbara Turner; Ronald E Myers; Terry Hyslop; Walter W Hauck; David Weinberg; Timothy Brigham; James Grana; Todd Rothermel; Neil Schlackman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Using a multifaceted approach to improve the follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Himabindu Kadiyala; Gayathri Bhagwath; Anila Shethia; Hashem El-Serag; Annette Walder; Maria E Velez; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-17       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Reasons patients with a positive fecal occult blood test result do not undergo complete diagnostic evaluation.

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Ronald E Myers; Birgit Meyer; Terry Hyslop; James Cocroft; Barbara J Turner; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

6.  Improvement in the diagnostic evaluation of a positive fecal occult blood test in an integrated health care organization.

Authors:  Diana L Miglioretti; Carolyn M Rutter; Susan Carol Bradford; Ann G Zauber; Larry G Kessler; Eric J Feuer; David C Grossman
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

7.  Barriers to completing colonoscopy after a positive fecal occult blood test.

Authors:  Revital Azulay; Liora Valinsky; Fabienne Hershkowitz; Einat Elran; Natan Lederman; Revital Kariv; Benjamin Braunstein; Anthony Heymann
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2021-02-11
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.