ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2015
Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- AEG-SEED position paper for the resumption of endoscopic activity after the peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic.Gastroenterologia y hepatologiaGuideline
- AI-Enhanced Prognostic Model for Predicting Polyp Recurrence and Guiding Post-Polypectomy Surveillance Intervals Using the ERCPMP-V5 Dataset.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Colon capsule endoscopy is an effective filter test for colonic polyp surveillance.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Article
- Article
- Appropriateness of colonoscopies in a Tunisian endoscopy center: factors and EPAGE-I/II criteria comparison.BMC gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Fecal occult blood and calprotectin testing to prioritize primary care patients for colonoscopy referral: The advantage study.United European gastroenterology journal · 2023Article
- Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Colonoscopic Evaluation of Lower Gastrointestinal Bleeding (LGIB): Practical Approach.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021Article
- "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka".BMC gastroenterology · 2018Article
- Distribution pattern of colorectal diseases based on 2300 total colonoscopies.Gastroenterology and hepatology from bed to bench · 2017Article
- Most Premature Surveillance Colonoscopy Is Not Attributable to Bowel Preparation or New Clinical Indications.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2016Article
- Quality in Colonoscopy.Current gastroenterology reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technical and quality improvements in colonoscopy along with the widespread implementation of population screening programs and the development of open-access units have resulted in an exponential increase in colonoscopy demands, forcing endoscopy units to bear an excessive burden of work. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appropriateness guideline and the European panel appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guideline have appeared as potential solutions to tackle this problem and to increase detection rates of relevant lesions. Inappropriate indications based on either guideline are as high as 30%. Strategies based on these clinical criteria or other systems may be used to reduce inappropriate indications, thus decreasing waiting lists for outpatient colonoscopy, saving costs, prioritizing colonoscopy referrals and subsequently decreasing interval times from diagnosis to treatment. Despite the potential role of appropriateness guidelines, they have not been widely adopted partly due to fear of missing significant lesions detected in inappropriate indications. We review the main appropriateness and prioritising systems, their usefulness for detecting relevant lesions, as well as interventions based on those systems and cost-effectiveness.
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.