Literature DB >> 17347317

The appropriateness of colonoscopy: a multi-center, international, observational study.

J K Harris1, F Froehlich, J-J Gonvers, V Wietlisbach, B Burnand, J-P Vader.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine the appropriateness and necessity of colonoscopy across Europe.
DESIGN: Prospective observational study.
SETTING: A total of 21 gastrointestinal centers from 11 countries. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy at each center. INTERVENTION: Appropriateness criteria developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, using the RAND appropriateness method, were used to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Appropriateness of colonoscopy.
RESULTS: A total of 5213 of 6004 (86.8%) patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy and had an appropriateness rating were included in this study. According to the criteria, 20, 26, 27, or 27% of colonoscopies were judged to be necessary, appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, respectively. Older patients and those with a major illness were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication for colonoscopy as compared to healthy patients or patients who were 45-54 years old. As compared to screening patients, patients who underwent colonoscopy for iron-deficiency anemia [OR: 30.84, 95% CI: 19.79-48.06] or change in bowel habits [OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.74-4.96] were more likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication, whereas patients who underwent colonoscopy for abdominal pain [OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49-0.83] or chronic diarrhea [OR: 0.54, 95% CI: 0.40-0.75] were less likely to have an appropriate or necessary indication.
CONCLUSIONS: This study identified significant proportions of inappropriate colonoscopies. Prospective use of the criteria by physicians referring for or performing colonoscopies may improve appropriateness and quality of care, especially in younger patients and in patients with nonspecific symptoms.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17347317     DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care        ISSN: 1353-4505            Impact factor:   2.038


  7 in total

1.  User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol.

Authors:  Gilles Jobin; Marie Pierre Gagnon; Bernard Candas; Catherine Dubé; Anis Ben Abdeljelil; Sonya Grenier
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2010-11-02       Impact factor: 7.327

2.  Inappropriate uses of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jennifer J Telford
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2012-05

3.  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

4.  Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints: incremental value of faecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness.

Authors:  Emanuel Burri; Michael Manz; Patricia Schroeder; Florian Froehlich; Livio Rossi; Christoph Beglinger; Frank Serge Lehmann
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-29       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka".

Authors:  Yasara Samarakoon; Nalika Gunawardena; Aloka Pathirana; Sumudu Hewage
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  A cross-sectional study of the appropriateness of colonoscopy requests in the Spanish region of Catalonia.

Authors:  Diana Puente; Francesc Xavier Cantero; Maria Llagostera; Pilar Piñeiro; Raquel Nieto; Rosa Saladich; Juanjo Mascort; Mercè Marzo; Jesús Almeda; Manel Segarra
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Appropriateness of colonoscopy requests according to EPAGE-II in the Spanish region of Catalonia.

Authors:  M Marzo-Castillejo; J Almeda; J J Mascort; O Cunillera; R Saladich; R Nieto; P Piñeiro; M Llagostera; Fx Cantero; M Segarra; D Puente
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 2.497

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.