Literature DB >> 15313742

Are physicians doing too much colonoscopy? A national survey of colorectal surveillance after polypectomy.

Pauline A Mysliwiec1, Martin L Brown, Carrie N Klabunde, David F Ransohoff.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Increasing use of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance of colorectal adenomas after polypectomy has given rise to concerns about the availability of endoscopic resources in the United States. Guidelines recommend surveillance after polypectomy at 3 to 5 years for a small adenoma, and follow-up is not advised for hyperplastic polyps. The intensity of physicians' surveillance is largely unstudied.
OBJECTIVE: To survey practicing gastroenterologists and general surgeons about their perceived need for the frequency of surveillance after polypectomy, to compare survey responses to practice guidelines, and to identify factors influencing their recommendations for surveillance.
DESIGN: Survey study conducted by the National Cancer Institute.
SETTING: A nationally representative study of physicians in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: 349 gastroenterologists and 316 general surgeons. MEASUREMENTS: Questionnaires mailed in 1999 and 2000 assessed physicians' recommendations for surveillance after polypectomy in asymptomatic, average-risk patients.
RESULTS: Response rates were 83%. Among gastroenterologists (317 of 349) and surgeons (125 of 316) who perform screening colonoscopy, 24% (95% CI, 19.3% to 28.7%) of gastroenterologists and 54% (CI, 44.9% to 62.5%) of surgeons recommend surveillance for a hyperplastic polyp. For a small adenoma, most physicians recommended surveillance colonoscopy and more than 50% recommended examinations every 3 years or more often. Physicians indicated that published evidence was very influential in their practice (83% [CI, 78.8% to 87.2%] of gastroenterologists and 78% [CI, 72.5% to 86.8%] of surgeons). By contrast, only half of respondents reported that guidelines were very influential. LIMITATIONS: The study was based on physicians' self-reported practice patterns. Results may overestimate or underestimate the performance of surveillance colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Some surveillance colonoscopy seems to be inappropriately performed and in excess of guidelines, particularly for hyperplastic polyps and low-risk lesions such as a small adenoma. These results suggest unnecessary demand for endoscopic resources.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15313742     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  101 in total

1.  Predictors of Poor Adherence of US Gastroenterologists with Colonoscopy Screening and Surveillance Guidelines.

Authors:  Heba Iskandar; Yan Yan; Jill Elwing; Dayna Early; Graham A Colditz; Jean S Wang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Factors associated with adherence to the recommended postpolypectomy surveillance interval.

Authors:  Eun Ran Kim; Dong Hyun Sinn; Jin Yong Kim; Dong Kyung Chang; Poong-Lyul Rhee; Jae J Kim; Jong Chul Rhee; Young-Ho Kim
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable.

Authors:  Robert H Fletcher; Marion R Nadel; John I Allen; Jason A Dominitz; Douglas O Faigel; David A Johnson; Dorothy S Lane; David Lieberman; John B Pope; Michael B Potter; Deborah P Robin; Paul C Schroy; Robert A Smith
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-08-12       Impact factor: 5.128

4.  Ascertainment of colonoscopy indication using administrative data.

Authors:  Deborah A Fisher; Janet M Grubber; John M Castor; Cynthia J Coffman
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.199

5.  Rate and yield of repeat upper endoscopy in patients with dyspepsia.

Authors:  Uri Ladabaum; Viam Dinh
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-05-28       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Alan Barkun; Ron Bridges; Rose Carter; Chris de Gara; Catherine Dube; Robert Enns; Roger Hollingworth; Donald Macintosh; Mark Borgaonkar; Sylviane Forget; Grigorios Leontiadis; Jonathan Meddings; Peter Cotton; Ernst J Kuipers
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  Light-scattering technologies for field carcinogenesis detection: a modality for endoscopic prescreening.

Authors:  Vadim Backman; Hemant K Roy
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  A pooled analysis of advanced colorectal neoplasia diagnoses after colonoscopic polypectomy.

Authors:  María Elena Martínez; John A Baron; David A Lieberman; Arthur Schatzkin; Elaine Lanza; Sidney J Winawer; Ann G Zauber; Ruiyun Jiang; Dennis J Ahnen; John H Bond; Timothy R Church; Douglas J Robertson; Stephanie A Smith-Warner; Elizabeth T Jacobs; David S Alberts; E Robert Greenberg
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2008-12-09       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lieke Hol; Rinku Sutradhar; Sumei Gu; Nancy N Baxter; Linda Rabeneck; Jill M Tinmouth; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-04-02

10.  Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Danielle M Tholey; Corbett E Shelton; Gloria Francis; Archana Anantharaman; Robert A Frankel; Paurush Shah; Amy Coan; Sarah E Hegarty; Benjamin E Leiby; David M Kastenberg
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 3.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.