Literature DB >> 17591050

A European view of diagnostic yield and appropriateness of colonoscopy.

Jean-Jacques Gonvers1, Jennifer K Harris, Vincent Wietlisbach, Bernard Burnand, John-Paul Vader, Florian Froehlich.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/AIMS: This study's purpose was to examine the relationship between appropriateness criteria and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy.
METHODOLOGY: This observational study prospectively included consecutive patients referred for colonoscopy from 21 centers in 11 countries. Patient, center, and colonoscopy characteristics were collected. Significant diagnoses included cancer, adenomatous polyps, angiodysplasia, and new diagnoses of inflammatory bowel disease. Appropriateness criteria were developed by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) using the RAND Appropriateness Method. Determinants associated with a significant diagnosis were examined using multiple logistic regression.
RESULTS: 5,213 patients who underwent diagnostic colonoscopy were included in the study. There were 1,227 (24%) significant diagnoses made, including 218 (4%) cancers and 735 (14%) adenomatous polyps. Among patients who had a significant diagnosis, 53% had an appropriate indication, 25% had an uncertain indication and 22% had an inappropriate indication. Having an appropriate indication, increasing age, and male sex increased the odds of finding a significant diagnosis at colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: Appropriateness criteria enhanced the detection of significant lesions, thereby demonstrating one way to enhance quality of care. However, appropriateness criteria will never perform better than the imperfect relationship between clinical symptoms and diagnostic yield.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17591050

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology        ISSN: 0172-6390


  10 in total

1.  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

2.  The Conversion of Planned Colonoscopy to Sigmoidoscopy and the Effect of this Practice on the Measurement of Quality Indicators.

Authors:  Sabina Beg; Stefano Sansone; Francesco Manguso; John Schembri; Jay Patel; Mo Thoufeeq; Gareth Corbett; Krish Ragunath
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-05-30       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Prevention of Acute Diarrheal Infections in Adults.

Authors:  Mark S Riddle; Herbert L DuPont; Bradley A Connor
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-04-12       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.  The yearly prevalence of findings in endoscopy of the lower part of the gastrointestinal tract.

Authors:  R J L F Loffeld; B Liberov; P E P Dekkers
Journal:  ISRN Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-12-27

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

8.  Comparison of non-invasive biomarkers faecal BAFF, calprotectin and FOBT in discriminating IBS from IBD and evaluation of intestinal inflammation.

Authors:  Yu Fu; Lingli Wang; Cheng Xie; Kaifang Zou; Lei Tu; Wei Yan; Xiaohua Hou
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  Is there an added value of faecal calprotectin and haemoglobin in the diagnostic work-up for primary care patients suspected of significant colorectal disease? A cross-sectional diagnostic study.

Authors:  Sjoerd G Elias; Liselotte Kok; Niek J de Wit; Ben J M Witteman; Jelle G Goedhard; Mariëlle J L Romberg-Camps; Jean W M Muris; Karel G M Moons
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-09-26       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  Colonoscopy Findings: A Single Institution Study from Pakistan.

Authors:  Saleh Mohammad; Ghulam Hyder Rind; Iftikhar Ali Shah; Imamuddin Baloch; Azhar Ali Shah; Salma Lakho; Aijaz Ahmed; Aamir Ali Channa; Pinkey Sachdev; Faizan Shaukat
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-11-15
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.