Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27142669›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2016

Most Premature Surveillance Colonoscopy Is Not Attributable to Bowel Preparation or New Clinical Indications.

Vishal Desai, Daniel A Sussman, Michael Greenspan, Sandeep Dayanand, Kevin Ollington, Sheena Patel, Hong Li, Joshua Melson

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Quality indicators for colonoscopy.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024
    Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Quality Indicators for Colonoscopy.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Article
  5. Key quality indicators in colonoscopy.Gastroenterology report · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Vishal DesaiDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison, Suite 206, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Daniel A SussmanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building 350 (D-49), Miami, FL, 33136, USA.
Michael GreenspanDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison, Suite 206, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Sandeep DayanandDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building 350 (D-49), Miami, FL, 33136, USA.
Kevin OllingtonDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th Street, Clinical Research Building 350 (D-49), Miami, FL, 33136, USA.
Sheena PatelDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison, Suite 206, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA.
Hong LiDepartment of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, 86 Jonathan Lucas Street, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA.
Joshua MelsonDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, 1725 West Harrison, Suite 206, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA. Joshua_Melson@rush.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsSurveillance colonoscopy frequently occurs prior to recommended intervals. Studies delineating the reasons why premature surveillance occurs are limited. We sought to define the frequency in which premature surveillance colonoscopy occurs in the setting of an inadequate bowel preparation or with a provided patient clinical indication versus when premature surveillance colonoscopy occurs without any provided discernible rationale in the setting of adequate bowel preparation.

methodsA retrospective cross-sectional cohort study of 700 patients undergoing colonoscopy for an indication of "surveillance of polyps" from 2008 to 2014 at two tertiary-care referral centers was carried out. Patients were deemed either "adherent" or "premature" based on US Multi-Society Task Force guideline intervals for surveillance colonoscopy. A documented decision-making rationale for premature surveillance was determined through review of the electronic medical record with assessment of clinical notes and endoscopy order and report.

resultsPremature surveillance occurred in 43.0 % (n = 301) of all surveillance colonoscopies performed. Among the premature cases, rationale was attributed to inadequate bowel preparation in 17.3 % (n = 52) and due to a new clinical indication in 21.6 % (n = 65). Most commonly, in 61.1 % (n = 184) of premature cases, no rationale was documented for the early colonoscopy.

conclusionsDocumented decision-making rationale for premature surveillance colonoscopy is usually absent in premature cases with inadequate bowel preparation and new clinical indications explaining only a minority of the occurrences.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingGuideline AdherenceAdenomaAgedCohort StudiesColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDocumentationEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Guidelines as TopicColonoscopyColon polypsGuideline adherenceScreeningSurveillance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.