ArticleLa Radiologia medica2016
CT colonography: a survey of general practitioners' knowledge and interest.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo verify the knowledge and interest of general practitioners on computed tomography colonography (CTC). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn 2014, a Web-based questionnaire was proposed to all general practitioners of [Milan, Italy]. The questionnaire consisted of ten questions concerning general practitioners' knowledge about CTC, including application of guidelines in clinical scenarios and diagnostic performance.
resultsOut of 1,053 general practitioners, 231 (22%), 155 men and 76 women (mean age 58 years), completed the survey. We found a significant difference between the age of responders and that of non-responders (p = 0.0033). Of the 231 responders, 84% were aware of the possibility of using CTC as a method for examining the colon-rectum. However, only 57% were aware about low X-ray exposure delivered by CTC and about the possibility of using a reduced cleansing protocol. Only 48% were aware that CTC accuracy in diagnosing 10-mm or larger polyps and colorectal cancers was similar to that of conventional colonoscopy, while 62% were informed about CTC advantages in comparison with double-contrast barium enema; 59% thought that CTC had a potential role as a screening test; 85-86% suggested CTC in the case of refused or incomplete conventional colonoscopy; 79% suggested immediate conventional colonoscopy in the case of at least one 10-mm polyp. About 54% usually prescribe one CTC every 4-6 months, while 36% never have, 3% one CTC per month, and 7% one every 2-3 months. Ninety-four per cent declared that they were willing to attend a course on CTC.
conclusionGeneral practitioners have limited knowledge concerning CTC. Radiological societies should fill this gap offering dedicated educational initiatives.
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.