Literature DB >> 24565067

Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes 2000 to 2011.

David A Lieberman1, J Lucas Williams1, Jennifer L Holub1, Cynthia D Morris2, Judith R Logan2, Glenn M Eisen3, Patricia Carney4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Understanding colonoscopy utilization and outcomes can help determine when the procedure is most effective.
OBJECTIVE: To study trends in utilization and outcomes of colonoscopy in the United States from 2000 to 2011.
DESIGN: Prospective collection of colonoscopy data.
SETTING: A total of 84 adult diverse GI practices. PATIENTS: All adult patients receiving colonoscopy for any reason. INTERVENTION: Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Polyps >9 mm or suspected malignant tumor.
RESULTS: We analyzed 1,372,838 reports. The most common reason for colonoscopy in patients aged <50 years is evaluation of symptoms such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) (28.7%) and bleeding or anemia (35.3%). In patients aged 50 to 74 years, colorectal cancer screening accounts for 42.9% of examinations. In patients aged >74 years, surveillance for cancer or polyps is the most common indication. The use of colonoscopy for average-risk screening increased nearly 3-fold during the study period. The prevalence of large polyps increases with age and is higher in men for every procedure indication. The prevalence of large polyps in patients with symptoms of IBS was lower than in those undergoing average-risk screening (odds ratio [OR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83-0.87). With increasing age, there was a shift from distal to proximal large polyps. The rate of proximal large polyps is higher in the black population compared with the white population (OR 1.19; 95% CI, 1.13-1.25). LIMITATIONS: In the absence of pathology data, use of surrogate as the main outcome.
CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy utilization changed from 2000 to 2011, with an increase in primary screening. The proximal location of large polyps in the black population and with advancing age has implications for screening and surveillance.
Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24565067     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  36 in total

1.  Colonoscopy Screening among Native Hawaiians at Queen's Medical Center between August 2011 and January 2013.

Authors:  Jodie M Kaalekahi; Krupa R Gandhi; John J Chen; Scott K Kuwada
Journal:  Hawaii J Med Public Health       Date:  2016-01

Review 2.  Evaluation of the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Personalized Surveillance After Colorectal Adenomatous Polypectomy.

Authors:  Ethna McFerran; James F O'Mahony; Richard Fallis; Duncan McVicar; Ann G Zauber; Frank Kee
Journal:  Epidemiol Rev       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 6.222

3.  Does Colon Polyp Surveillance Improve Patient Outcomes?

Authors:  David Lieberman; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 4.  Inflammation in irritable bowel syndrome: Myth or new treatment target?

Authors:  Emanuele Sinagra; Giancarlo Pompei; Giovanni Tomasello; Francesco Cappello; Gaetano Cristian Morreale; Georgios Amvrosiadis; Francesca Rossi; Attilio Ignazio Lo Monte; Aroldo Gabriele Rizzo; Dario Raimondo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-02-21       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 5.  Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-16

6.  To Screen or Not to Screen Adults 45-49 Years of Age: That is the Question.

Authors:  Joseph C Anderson; Jewel N Samadder
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Polyp Detection Rate Correlates Strongly with Adenoma Detection Rate in Trainee Endoscopists.

Authors:  Sandy Ng; Aditya K Sreenivasan; Jillian Pecoriello; Peter S Liang
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2020-01-11       Impact factor: 3.199

8.  Repeat colonoscopy after a colonoscopy with a negative result in Ontario: a population-based cohort study.

Authors:  Lieke Hol; Rinku Sutradhar; Sumei Gu; Nancy N Baxter; Linda Rabeneck; Jill M Tinmouth; Lawrence F Paszat
Journal:  CMAJ Open       Date:  2015-04-02

9.  Thinking Big About Small Adenomas: Moving Toward "Precision Surveillance".

Authors:  Thomas F Imperiale
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-10-23       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Personalizing colonoscopy screening for elderly individuals based on screening history, cancer risk, and comorbidity status could increase cost effectiveness.

Authors:  Frank van Hees; Sameer D Saini; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar; Sandeep Vijan; Reinier G S Meester; Harry J de Koning; Ann G Zauber; Marjolein van Ballegooijen
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 22.682

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.