ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2013
Physician recommendations and patient adherence after inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome.Gastroenterology · 2017Trial
- Korean clinical practice guidelines for bowel preparation before colonoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2026Review
- Written Recommendation to Repeat Colonoscopy within 1 Year after Inadequate Bowel Preparation: A Simple and Highly Effective Intervention.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2020Article
- Patients Are Willing to Repeat Colonoscopy at a Short Interval When Bowel Preparation Quality Is Suboptimal.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2018Article
- Adenoma detection in excellent versus good bowel preparation for colonoscopy.Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2015Observational
- Does the "polyp paradox" really exist?Digestive diseases and sciences · 2014Article
- Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2014Observational
- Post-colonoscopy recommendations after inadequate bowel preparation: all in the timing.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsIt has been suggested that bowel preparation quality may influence decision-making about appropriate follow-up interval after screening colonoscopy. We sought: (1) to assess physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy in average-risk patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening, and (2) to measure the association between physician recommendations and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy.
methodsPatients undergoing average-risk screening colonoscopy from 2004 to 2009 found to have inadequate bowel preparation were identified. Physician recommendations for timing of subsequent colonoscopy and patient adherence to repeat colonoscopy were assessed through examination of endoscopy records. Data from repeat colonoscopies were collected through August 2010.
resultsThere were 373 patients with inadequate bowel preparation on initial screening colonoscopy. There was a wide range of physician recommendations for timing of repeat colonoscopy: next day (4.6 % of patients), 2 days to 6 months (9.9 %), 7 months to 1 year (34.0 %), 2-5 years (38.3 %), 6-10 years (5.1 %), and timing not specified (8.0 %). Physicians were significantly more likely to recommend repeat colonoscopy within 1 year if any polyps were detected (OR = 2.2, p = 0.001). Patients instructed to have next day follow-up were significantly more likely to adhere to the recommendation compared to patients who were instructed to return after longer intervals (OR 4.4, p = 0.005).
conclusionsPatients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy were subject to a wide range of physician recommendations for follow-up. Patient adherence to physician recommendations was significantly higher when repeat colonoscopy was recommended the next day.
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.