Literature DB >> 25901211

Quality monitoring in colonoscopy: Time to act.

Mary A Atia1, Francisco C Ramirez1, Suryakanth R Gurudu1.   

Abstract

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test for colorectal cancer screening. The primary advantage of colonoscopy as opposed to other screening modalities is the ability to provide therapy by removal of precancerous lesions at the time of detection. However, colonoscopy may miss clinically important neoplastic polyps. The value of colonoscopy in reducing incidence of colorectal cancer is dependent on many factors including, the patient, provider, and facility level. A high quality examination includes adequate bowel preparation, optimal colonoscopy technique, meticulous inspection during withdrawal, identification of subtle flat lesions, and complete polypectomy. Considerable variation among institutions and endoscopists has been reported in the literature. In attempt to diminish this disparity, various approaches have been advocated to improve the quality of colonoscopy. The overall impact of these interventions is not yet well defined. Implementing optimal education and training and subsequently analyzing the impact of these endeavors in improvement of quality will be essential to augment the utility of colonoscopy for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Adenoma detection rate; Cecal intubation rate; Colonoscopy; Quality improvement

Year:  2015        PMID: 25901211      PMCID: PMC4400621          DOI: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i4.328

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc


  70 in total

1.  How many endoscopies are performed for colorectal cancer screening? Results from CDC's survey of endoscopic capacity.

Authors:  Laura C Seeff; Thomas B Richards; Jean A Shapiro; Marion R Nadel; Diane L Manninen; Leslie S Given; Fred B Dong; Linda D Winges; Matthew T McKenna
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 22.682

2.  Training to competency in colonoscopy: assessing and defining competency standards.

Authors:  Robert E Sedlack
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2011-04-23       Impact factor: 9.427

3.  Improving detection during colonoscopy: multiple pathways for investigation.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  Colonoscopy quality measures: experience from the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

Authors:  Thomas J W Lee; Matthew D Rutter; Roger G Blanks; Sue M Moss; Andrew F Goddard; Andrew Chilton; Claire Nickerson; Richard J Q McNally; Julietta Patnick; Colin J Rees
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Water immersion versus standard colonoscopy insertion technique: randomized trial shows promise for minimal sedation.

Authors:  C W Leung; T Kaltenbach; R Soetikno; K K Wu; F W Leung; S Friedland
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2010-06-30       Impact factor: 10.093

6.  Colonoscopic withdrawal technique is associated with adenoma miss rates.

Authors:  D K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 9.427

7.  Cap-fitted colonoscopy: a randomized, tandem colonoscopy study of adenoma miss rates.

Authors:  David G Hewett; Douglas K Rex
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 9.427

8.  Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study.

Authors:  Florian Froehlich; Vincent Wietlisbach; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Bernard Burnand; John-Paul Vader
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  Impact of patient education on quality of bowel preparation in outpatient colonoscopies.

Authors:  Chintan Modi; Joseph R Depasquale; W Scott Digiacomo; Judith E Malinowski; Kristen Engelhardt; Sohail N Shaikh; Shivangi T Kothari; Raghu Kottam; Rada Shakov; Charbel Maksoud; Walid J Baddoura; Robert S Spira
Journal:  Qual Prim Care       Date:  2009

10.  Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Douglas K Rex; Thomas F Imperiale; Danielle R Latinovich; L Lisa Bratcher
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 10.864

View more
  4 in total

1.  Association between diverticulosis and colonic neoplastic lesions in individuals with a positive faecal immunochemical test.

Authors:  Sergio Morini; Lorenzo Ridola; Cesare Hassan; Roberto Lorenzetti; Roberto Boggi; Massimo Napoli; Silverio Tomao; Angelo Zullo
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-07-08       Impact factor: 4.623

2.  Actual and estimated adenoma detection rates: a 2-year monocentric colonoscopic screening outcome in Shenzhen, China.

Authors:  Li Zeng; Eng G Chua; Ying Xiong; Shihua Ding; Hui Ai; Zhibo Hou; Mun F Loke; Khean L Goh; Chin Y Tay; Barry J Marshall; Fuqiang Zhu; Dayong Sun
Journal:  JGH Open       Date:  2020-03-16

3.  Does the withdrawal time affect adenoma detection in non-screening colonoscopies?

Authors:  Ammar Al-Rifaie; Mohammed El-Feki; Ismaeel Al-Talib; Maysam Abdulwahid; Andrew Hopper; Mo Thoufeeq
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03-16

4.  Weekend and evening planned colonoscopy activity: a safe and effective way to meet demands.

Authors:  Shimaa A Afify; Omnia M Abo-Elazm; Ishak I Bahbah; Mo H Thoufeeq
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-06-17
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.