Literature DB >> 15740545

The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study.

F Balaguer1, J Llach, A Castells, J M Bordas, M Ppellisé, F Rodríguez-Moranta, A Mata, G Fernández-Esparrach, A Ginès, J M Piqué.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The demand for gastrointestinal endoscopy is increasing in most developed countries, resulting in an important rise in overall costs and waiting lists for endoscopic procedures. Therefore, adherence to appropriate indications for these procedures is essential for the rational use of finite resources in an open-access system. AIM: To assess indications and appropriateness of colonoscopy according to the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) criteria.
METHODS: From May to June 2004, all consecutive patients referred to our Unit for open-access colonoscopy were considered for inclusion in this prospective study. Appropriateness of each colonoscopy was established according to the EPAGE criteria. In order to evaluate whether appropriateness of use correlated with the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy, relevant endoscopic findings were also recorded.
RESULTS: A total of 350 consecutive patients were included in the study. In 38 of them, the colonoscopy indication was not listed in the EPAGE guidelines and, consequently, they were not evaluated. In the remaining 312 patients, the indication for the procedure was considered inappropriate in 73 (23%) patients. Both referring doctor characteristics (specialty and health care setting) and patient data (age) correlated with appropriateness of endoscopy. The diagnostic yield was significantly higher for appropriate colonoscopies (42%) than in those judged inappropriate (21%) (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: A noteworthy proportion of patients referred for colonoscopy to an open-access endoscopy unit are considered inappropriate because of their indication, with significant differences among specialties. These results suggest that implementation of validated guidelines for its appropriate use could improve this situation and, considering the correlation between appropriateness and diagnostic yield, even contribute to improve the prognosis of patients with colorectal diseases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15740545     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02359.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0269-2813            Impact factor:   8.171


  19 in total

1.  Advances in endoscopy: current developments in diagnostic and therapeutic endoscopy.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2010-04

2.  Canadian credentialing guidelines for colonoscopy.

Authors:  J Romagnuolo; R Enns; T Ponich; J Springer; D Armstrong; A N Barkun
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.522

3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen; Irving M Pike; Douglas G Adler; M Brian Fennerty; John G Lieb; Walter G Park; Maged K Rizk; Mandeep S Sawhney; Nicholas J Shaheen; Sachin Wani; David S Weinberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 4.  Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-16

5.  Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study.

Authors:  A Z Gimeno García; Y González; E Quintero; D Nicolás-Pérez; Z Adrián; R Romero; O Alarcón Fernández; M Hernández; M Carrillo; V Felipe; J Díaz; L Ramos; M Moreno; A Jiménez-Sosa
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Open Access Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Prevention: An Evaluation of Appropriateness and Quality.

Authors:  Nikhil Kapila; Harjinder Singh; Kiranmayee Kandragunta; Fernando J Castro
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-04-06       Impact factor: 3.199

7.  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

8.  Quality indicators for colorectal cancer screening for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Philip S Schoenfeld; Jonathan Cohen
Journal:  Tech Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2013-04

9.  Appropriateness of colonoscopy: diagnostic yield and safety in guidelines.

Authors:  Mario Grassini; Carlo Verna; Paolo Niola; Monica Navino; Edda Battaglia; Gabrio Bassotti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

10.  Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Claire Friedemann Smith; Alice C Tompson; Nicholas Jones; Josh Brewin; Elizabeth A Spencer; Clare R Bankhead; Fd Richard Hobbs; Brian D Nicholson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.386

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.