Literature DB >> 22700393

Preference for colonoscopy versus computerized tomographic colonography: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

Otto S Lin1, Richard A Kozarek, Michael Gluck, Geoffrey C Jiranek, Johannes Koch, Kris V Kowdley, Shayan Irani, Matthew Nguyen, Jason A Dominitz.   

Abstract

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [-0.015-0.451]) or general medicine journals (-0.158 [-0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p<0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using "masked" and "unmasked" preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22700393      PMCID: PMC3445696          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-012-2115-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  66 in total

1.  Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

Authors:  Andreas Stang
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2010-07-22       Impact factor: 8.082

2.  The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies.

Authors:  Erik von Elm; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger; Stuart J Pocock; Peter C Gøtzsche; Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2007-10-20       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  Nonlaxative PET/CT colonography: feasibility, acceptability, and pilot performance in patients at higher risk of colonic neoplasia.

Authors:  Stuart A Taylor; Jamshed B Bomanji; Levi Manpanzure; Charlotte Robinson; Ashley M Groves; John Dickson; Nickolaos D Papathanasiou; Rebecca Greenhalgh; Peter J Ell; Steve Halligan
Journal:  J Nucl Med       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 10.057

Review 4.  Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Debra J Holden; Daniel E Jonas; Deborah S Porterfield; Daniel Reuland; Russell Harris
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population.

Authors:  Wendy Ho; Darcy E Broughton; Karen Donelan; G Scott Gazelle; Chin Hur
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-08       Impact factor: 3.959

6.  CT colonography may improve colorectal cancer screening compliance.

Authors:  Fouad J Moawad; Corinne L Maydonovitch; Priscilla A Cullen; Duncan S Barlow; Donald W Jenson; Brooks D Cash
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.959

7.  Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy.

Authors:  Ian C Roberts-Thomson; Graeme R Tucker; Peter J Hewett; Peter Cheung; Ruben A Sebben; E E Win Khoo; Julie D Marker; Wayne K Clapton
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-01-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Patient acceptance of MR colonography with improved fecal tagging versus conventional colonoscopy.

Authors:  M P Achiam; V Løgager; E Chabanova; H S Thomsen; J Rosenberg
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 3.528

Review 9.  Population-based prevalence estimates of history of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy: review and analysis of recent trends.

Authors:  Christian Stock; Ulrike Haug; Hermann Brenner
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2009-10-20       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes.

Authors:  Marjolein H Liedenbaum; A H de Vries; C I B F Gouw; A F van Rijn; S Bipat; E Dekker; J Stoker
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2009-08-26       Impact factor: 5.315

View more
  16 in total

Review 1.  Assessing stated preferences for colorectal cancer screening: a critical systematic review of discrete choice experiments.

Authors:  S Wortley; G Wong; A Kieu; K Howard
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Insurance Coverage for CT Colonography Screening: Impact on Overall Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates.

Authors:  Maureen A Smith; Jennifer M Weiss; Aaron Potvien; Jessica R Schumacher; Ronald E Gangnon; David H Kim; Lauren A Weeth-Feinstein; Perry J Pickhardt
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 11.105

3.  The potential of imaging techniques as a screening tool for colorectal cancer: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

Authors:  Marjolein J E Greuter; Johannes Berkhof; Remond J A Fijneman; Erhan Demirel; Jie-Bin Lew; Gerrit A Meijer; Jaap Stoker; Veerle M H Coupé
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 4.  CT colonography for population screening of colorectal cancer: hints from European trials.

Authors:  Lapo Sali; Daniele Regge
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-09-14       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 5.  Patient preferences for the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a scoping review.

Authors:  Susan M Joy; Emily Little; Nisa M Maruthur; Tanjala S Purnell; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 4.981

6.  [Colorectal cancer: role of imaging in screening].

Authors:  T Mang
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 0.635

7.  Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.

Authors:  Cristiano Spada; Jaap Stoker; Onofre Alarcon; Federico Barbaro; Davide Bellini; Michael Bretthauer; Margriet C De Haan; Jean-Marc Dumonceau; Monika Ferlitsch; Steve Halligan; Emma Helbren; Mikael Hellstrom; Ernst J Kuipers; Philippe Lefere; Thomas Mang; Emanuele Neri; Lucio Petruzziello; Andrew Plumb; Daniele Regge; Stuart A Taylor; Cesare Hassan; Andrea Laghi
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 5.315

8.  Patient willingness for repeat screening and preference for CT colonography and optical colonoscopy in ACRIN 6664: the National CT Colonography trial.

Authors:  Ilana F Gareen; Bettina Siewert; David J Vanness; Benjamin Herman; C D Johnson; Constantine Gatsonis
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 2.711

9.  Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing.

Authors:  Alex Ghanouni; Steve Halligan; Andrew Plumb; Darren Boone; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-05-13       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment.

Authors:  Alex Ghanouni; Steve Halligan; Stuart A Taylor; Darren Boone; Andrew Plumb; Sandro Stoffel; Stephen Morris; Guiqing Lily Yao; Shihua Zhu; Richard Lilford; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-04-03       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.