Trial reportEuropean radiology2011
Patient acceptability of CT colonography compared with double contrast barium enema: results from a multicentre randomised controlled trial of symptomatic patients.
Trial report in European radiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice parameters for the treatment of colonic diverticular disease: Italian Society of Colon and Rectal Surgery (SICCR) guidelines.Techniques in coloproctology · 2015Guideline
- Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2019Trial
- Non- or full-laxative CT colonography vs. endoscopic tests for colorectal cancer screening: a randomised survey comparing public perceptions and intentions to undergo testing.European radiology · 2014Trial
- Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.Journal of medical imaging and radiation oncology · 2020Article
- Perceived patient burden and acceptability of whole body MRI for staging lung and colorectal cancer; comparison with standard staging investigations.The British journal of radiology · 2018Article
- Colorectal Cancer Screening-Who, How, and When?Clinical endoscopy · 2018Review
- The Burden of Cystoscopic Bladder Cancer Surveillance: Anxiety, Discomfort, and Patient Preferences for Decision Making.Urology · 2017Article
- CT colonography: role in FOBT-based screening programs for colorectal cancer.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Elective colonic resection after acute diverticulitis improves quality of life, intestinal symptoms and functional outcome: experts' perspectives and review of literature.Updates in surgery · 2016Review
- CT colonography: a survey of general practitioners' knowledge and interest.La Radiologia medica · 2016Article
- Editorial on the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) guideline on clinical indications for CT colonography in the colorectal cancer diagnosis.La Radiologia medica · 2015Article
- Computed tomography colonography in 2014: an update on technique and indications.World journal of gastroenterology · 2014Review
- Using computed tomography colonography in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer - a prospective study in a university hospital in South America.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2014Article
- Italian consensus conference for colonic diverticulosis and diverticular disease.United European gastroenterology journal · 2014Article
- Article
- Colorectal cancer screening: tests, strategies, and perspectives.Frontiers in public health · 2014Review
- CT colonography for investigation of patients with symptoms potentially suggestive of colorectal cancer: a review of the UK SIGGAR trials.The British journal of radiology · 2013Review
- Diagnosis: CT colonography has finally arrived.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo determine patient acceptability of barium enema (BE) or CT colonography (CTC).
methodsAfter ethical approval, 921 consenting patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer who had been randomly assigned and completed either BE (N = 606) or CTC (N = 315) received a questionnaire to assess experience of the clinical episode including bowel preparation, procedure and complications. Satisfaction, worry and physical discomfort were assessed using an adapted version of a validated acceptability scale. Non-parametric methods assessed differences between the randomised tests and the effect of patient characteristics.
resultsPatients undergoing BE were significantly less satisfied (median 61, interquartile range [IQR] 54-67 vs. median 64, IQR 56-69; p = 0.003) and experienced more physical discomfort (median 40, IQR 29-52 vs. median 35.5, IQR 25-47; p < 0.001) than those undergoing CTC. Post-test, BE patients were significantly more likely to experience 'abdominal pain/cramps' (68% vs. 57%; p = 0.007), 'soreness' (57% vs. 37%; p < 0.001), 'nausea/vomiting' (16% vs. 8%; p = 0.009), 'soiling' (31% vs. 23%; p = 0.034) and 'wind' (92% vs. 84%; p = 0.001) and in the case of 'wind' to also rate it as severe (27% vs. 15%; p < 0.001).
conclusionCTC is associated with significant improvements in patient experience. These data support the case for CTC to replace BE.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.