Literature DB >> 18467917

What are the sensitivity and specificity of endoscopic photographs in determining completion of colonoscopy? Results from an online questionnaire.

Adrian I Thuraisingam1, Jonathan L Brown, John T Anderson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: There is no consensus as to the optimal method for documenting colonoscopy completion. For endoscopic photographs to be useful for documentation, reviewers must be able to distinguish between photographs taken from incomplete and complete colonoscopy. The primary aim of this study was to calculate the diagnostic specificity and sensitivity of a pair of photographs in confirming complete colonoscopy. The secondary aim was to assess current methods of documenting colonoscopy completion.
METHODS: Eighty pairs of photographs were taken from completed colonoscopies. Two photographs, including at least one view of the ileo-caecal valve, were taken of caecal landmarks and/or the terminal ileum. Colonoscopy completion was independently validated using video clips. Twenty pairs of photographs were also taken from another colonic site that could potentially be misinterpreted as the caecum, for example, hepatic flexure. Using an online questionnaire 34 experienced endoscopists were asked about their own methods of colonoscopy documentation. Thirty-two of these reviewers then assessed the 100 photographic pairs, blinded to their origin, and were asked 'Taking both photographs into account, are you convinced that complete colonoscopy has been performed?'
RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of endoscopists did not routinely use any objective method of documentation although 38% frequently used some photographs for documentation. Using a pair of endoscopic photographs to document colonoscopy completion has a sensitivity of 51.4% (confidence intervals: 49.5-53.3%) and a specificity of 89.2% (confidence intervals: 86.8-91.6%).
CONCLUSION: Both the sensitivity and the specificity of a pair of endoscopic photographs are too low to be used for reliably documenting colonoscopy completion.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18467917     DOI: 10.1097/MEG.0b013e3282f51278

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0954-691X            Impact factor:   2.566


  6 in total

1.  The Use of Cecal and Terminal lleal Images for Verifying the Completion of Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Nick Powell
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2011-08

2.  Triradiate caecal fold: Is it a useful landmark for caecal intubation in colonoscopy?

Authors:  Andrew Finlayson; Raaj Chandra; Ian A Hastie; Ian T Jones; Susan Shedda; Michael K-Y Hong; Aileen Yen; Ian P Hayes
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-09-25

3.  Anatomic classification of the endoscopic appearance of the normal appendiceal orifice: a novel tool for recognition and documentation of cecal intubation.

Authors:  Florence M Aslinia; Preet Bagi; John D Sorkin; Richard B Williams; Robert G Knodell; Lawrence F Sorkin; Bruce D Greenwald; Allison Steele; Jean-Pierre Raufman
Journal:  Clin Anat       Date:  2011-09-12       Impact factor: 2.414

4.  Quality colonoscopy and risk of interval cancer in Lynch syndrome.

Authors:  J F Haanstra; H F A Vasen; S Sanduleanu; E J van der Wouden; J J Koornstra; J H Kleibeuker; W H de Vos Tot Nederveen Cappel
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2013-07-16       Impact factor: 2.571

5.  Photodocumentation in colonoscopy: the need to do better?

Authors:  Ahmir Ahmad; Brian P Saunders
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-08-02

6.  Digital Recording and Documentation of Endoscopic Procedures: Do Patients and Doctors Think Alike?

Authors:  Nadav Willner; Maya Peled-Raz; Dan Shteinberg; Michal Shteinberg; Dean Keren; Tova Rainis
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-11-23
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.