Literature DB >> 23166901

Different screening definitions have little impact on polypectomy rate estimates.

Mengzhu Jiang1, Maida J Sewitch, Lawrence Joseph, Alan N Barkun.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Polypectomy rate is a surrogate quality indicator for screening colonoscopy. Various methods for identifying screening colonoscopies have been used and it is unclear how different definitions affect the estimated polypectomy rate.
OBJECTIVE: To estimate polypectomy rates and how they vary according to the definition of a screening colonoscopy, using patient- and endoscopist-reported indications.
METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of endoscopists and their patients 50 to 75 years of age who underwent colonoscopy was conducted. Based on questionnaire responses, four patient indications were derived: perceived screening; perceived nonscreening; medical history indicating nonscreening; and combination of the three indications. Endoscopist indication was derived from a questionnaire completed immediately after colonoscopy. Polypectomy status was obtained from provincial physician billing records. Polypectomy rates were computed, while accounting for physician and hospital level clustering, using all four patient indications, endoscopist indication, and the agreement between patient and endoscopist indications. The effect of indications on polypectomy rate was estimated adjusting for age, sex and family history of colorectal cancer.
RESULTS: A total of 2134 patients and 45 endoscopists were included. The proportion of colonoscopies classified as screening according to the nine indications ranged from 32.2% to 70.9%. Polypectomy rates ranged between 22.6% and 26.2% for screening colonoscopy, and between 27.1% and 30.8% for nonscreening colonoscopy. Adjusted ORs for indication ranged between 0.74 and 0.94. DISCUSSION: Although the proportion of colonoscopies identified as screening varied considerably among the indications, the estimated polypectomy rates were similar.
CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that the way screening is defined does not greatly affect the estimates of polypectomy rate.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23166901      PMCID: PMC3495695          DOI: 10.1155/2012/986153

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0835-7900            Impact factor:   3.522


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  Screening colonoscopy in Chinese and Western patients: a comparative study.

Authors:  Maw-Soan Soon; Richard A Kozarek; Kamran Ayub; Anny Soon; Tin-Yu Lin; Otto S Lin
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 3.  Quality indicators for colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; John L Petrini; Todd H Baron; Amitabh Chak; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Brenda Hoffman; Brian C Jacobson; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Endoscopist can be more powerful than age and male gender in predicting adenoma detection at colonoscopy.

Authors:  Shawn C Chen; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-01-11       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  Data sources for measuring colorectal endoscopy use among Medicare enrollees.

Authors:  Anna P Schenck; Carrie N Klabunde; Joan L Warren; Sharon Peacock; William W Davis; Sarah T Hawley; Michael Pignone; David F Ransohoff
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Comparing patient and endoscopist perceptions of the colonoscopy indication.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Dara Stein; Lawrence Joseph; Alain Bitton; Robert J Hilsden; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence Paszat; Jill Tinmouth; Mary Anne Cooper
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 3.522

7.  The quality of screening colonoscopies in an office-based endoscopy clinic.

Authors:  Douglas Bair; Joe Pham; M Bianca Seaton; Naveen Arya; Michelle Pryce; Trevor L Seaton
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 3.522

8.  Variable detection of nonadenomatous polyps by individual endoscopists at colonoscopy and correlation with adenoma detection.

Authors:  Shawn C Chen; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 3.062

9.  Appropriateness of colonoscopy in the era of colorectal cancer screening: a prospective, multicenter study in a private-practice setting (Berlin Colonoscopy Project 1, BECOP 1).

Authors:  Andreas Adler; Stephanie Roll; Bernhard Marowski; Rolf Drossel; Hans-Ulrich Rehs; Stefan N Willich; Jutta Riese; Bertram Wiedenmann; Thomas Rösch
Journal:  Dis Colon Rectum       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 4.585

10.  American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected].

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; David A Johnson; Joseph C Anderson; Phillip S Schoenfeld; Carol A Burke; John M Inadomi
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-02-24       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  2 in total

1.  Screening polypectomy rates below quality benchmarks: a prospective study.

Authors:  Maida J Sewitch; Mengzhu Jiang; Mélanie Fon Sing; Alan Barkun; Lawrence Joseph
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

2.  Feasibility of joystick guided colonoscopy.

Authors:  Esther D Rozeboom; Ivo A M J Broeders; Paul Fockens
Journal:  J Robot Surg       Date:  2015-05-10
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.