Literature DB >> 19139450

Screening colonoscopies by primary care physicians: a meta-analysis.

Thad Wilkins1, Bruce LeClair, Mark Smolkin, Kathy Davies, Andria Thomas, Marcia L Taylor, Scott Strayer.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is currently too few endoscopists to enact a national colorectal cancer screening program with colonoscopy. Primary care physicians could play an important role in filling this shortage by offering screening colonoscopy in their practice. The purpose of this study was to examine the safety and effectiveness of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians.
METHODS: We identified relevant articles through searches of MEDLINE and EMBASE bibliographic databases to December 2007 and through manual searches of bibliographies of each citation. We found 590 articles, 12 of which met inclusion criteria. Two authors independently abstracted data on study and patient characteristics. Descriptive statistics were performed. For each outcome measure, a random effects model was used to determine estimated means and confidence intervals.
RESULTS: We analyzed 12 studies of colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians, which included 18,292 patients (mean age 59 years, 50.5% women). The mean estimated adenoma and adenocarcinoma detection rates were 28.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20.4%-39.3%) and 1.7% (95% CI, 0.9%-3.0%), respectively. The mean estimated reach-the-cecum rate was 89.2% (95% CI, 80.1%-94.4%). The major complication rate was 0.04% (95% CI, 0.01%-0.07%); no deaths were reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians have quality, safety, and efficacy indicators that are comparable to those recommended by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, the American College of Gastroenterology, and the Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons. Based on these results, colonoscopy screening by primary care physicians appears to be safe and effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19139450      PMCID: PMC2625839          DOI: 10.1370/afm.939

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Fam Med        ISSN: 1544-1709            Impact factor:   5.166


  33 in total

1.  Colorectal cancer prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology.

Authors:  D K Rex; D A Johnson; D A Lieberman; R W Burt; A Sonnenberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Efficacy in standard clinical practice of colonoscopic polypectomy in reducing colorectal cancer incidence.

Authors:  F Citarda; G Tomaselli; R Capocaccia; S Barcherini; M Crespi
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 23.059

3.  Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Screening colonoscopy in asymptomatic average-risk African Americans.

Authors:  D K Rex; A M Khan; P Shah; J Newton; O W Cummings
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-05       Impact factor: 9.427

5.  Risk of advanced proximal neoplasms in asymptomatic adults according to the distal colorectal findings.

Authors:  T F Imperiale; D R Wagner; C Y Lin; G N Larkin; J D Rogge; D F Ransohoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380.

Authors:  D A Lieberman; D G Weiss; J H Bond; D J Ahnen; H Garewal; G Chejfec
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-07-20       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 7.  Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group.

Authors:  D F Stroup; J A Berlin; S C Morton; I Olkin; G D Williamson; D Rennie; D Moher; B J Becker; T A Sipe; S B Thacker
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-04-19       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  A prospective analysis of 13,580 colonoscopies. Reevaluation of credentialing guidelines.

Authors:  S D Wexner; J E Garbus; J J Singh
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2001-02-06       Impact factor: 4.584

9.  Cost-effectiveness of colonoscopy in screening for colorectal cancer.

Authors:  A Sonnenberg; F Delcò; J M Inadomi
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-10-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Cancer statistics, 2007.

Authors:  Ahmedin Jemal; Rebecca Siegel; Elizabeth Ward; Taylor Murray; Jiaquan Xu; Michael J Thun
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 508.702

View more
  19 in total

1.  Assessing colonoscopy training outcomes using quality indicators.

Authors:  Leigh D Eckert; Matthew W Short; Jason E Domagalski; Khalid A Jaboori; Patricia A Short
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2009-09

2.  Clinical trial report-real-time in vivo polyp histology diagnosis: implications for the practice of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Brooks D Cash
Journal:  Curr Gastroenterol Rep       Date:  2010-10

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.  Quality and safety of screening colonoscopies performed by primary care physicians with standby specialist support.

Authors:  Sudha Xirasagar; Thomas G Hurley; Lekhena Sros; James R Hebert
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Endoscopy: Have we gastroenterologists lessened our value through the perception of us as professional proceduralists?

Authors:  Sherman M Chamberlain
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-01-16

6.  The aftermath of efficacy.

Authors:  Alfred O Berg
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  The complexity of and opportunity for screening in primary care.

Authors:  Kurt C Stange
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

8.  Quality of Colonoscopy Performed in Rural Practice: Experience From the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative and the Oregon Rural Practice-Based Research Network.

Authors:  Jennifer L Holub; Cynthia Morris; Lyle J Fagnan; Judith R Logan; LeAnn C Michaels; David A Lieberman
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.333

9.  Double-Balloon Colonoscopy Has a Higher Cecal Intubation Rate Than Conventional Colonoscopy Using a Colon Simulator.

Authors:  Keijiro Sunada; Satoshi Shinozaki; Tomonori Yano; Yoshikazu Hayashi; Hirotsugu Sakamoto; Alan Kawarai Lefor; Hironori Yamamoto
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Feasibility, safety, acceptability, and yield of office-based, screening transnasal esophagoscopy (with video).

Authors:  Anne F Peery; Toshitaka Hoppo; Katherine S Garman; Evan S Dellon; Norma Daugherty; Susan Bream; Alejandro F Sanz; Jon Davison; Melissa Spacek; Diane Connors; Ashley L Faulx; Amitabh Chak; James D Luketich; Nicholas J Shaheen; Blair A Jobe
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2012-03-16       Impact factor: 9.427

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.