Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27287477›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2017

Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.

Andrew A Plumb, Alex Ghanouni, Colin J Rees, Paul Hewitson, Claire Nickerson, Suzanne Wright, Stuart A Taylor, Steve Halligan, Christian von Wagner

Open access · hybridAbstract read

PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher

In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

10citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it

1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

PillCam COLON 2 for investigation of the colon through direct visualisation: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026
Pooled it
Patients' experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature.BMJ open · 2023
Pooled it
Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline - Update 2020.European radiology · 2021
Guideline
[CT colonography : Technique and indications].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
Review
Faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in patients with signs or symptoms of suspected colorectal cancer (CRC): a joint guideline from the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG).Gut · 2022
Article
Computed Tomography Colonography (CTC): Is It Really the Non-Invasive Option We Think It Is? A Patient Experience Study.Journal of patient experience · 2022
Article
Patient participation in gastrointestinal endoscopy - From patients' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
Article
Preference and Experience of Colonic Examination for Participants Presenting to Hospitals with a Positive Fecal Immunochemical Test Result.Patient preference and adherence · 2020
Article
Colon cancer screening with CT colonography: logistics, cost-effectiveness, efficiency and progress.The British journal of radiology · 2018
Review
The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2017
Review

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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew A PlumbCentre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK. andrew.plumb@ucl.ac.uk.

Alex GhanouniHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

Colin J ReesDurham University School of Medicine, Pharmacy and Health, Durham, UK.

Paul HewitsonHealth Services Research Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Claire NickersonNHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Fulwood House, Sheffield, UK.

Suzanne WrightNHS Cancer Screening Programmes, Fulwood House, Sheffield, UK.

Stuart A TaylorCentre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK.

Steve HalliganCentre for Medical Imaging, Division of Medicine, University College London, 3rd Floor East, 250 Euston Road, London, NW1 2PG, UK.

Christian von WagnerHealth Behaviour Research Centre, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK.

University College London · GBUniversity of East London · GBDurham University · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 14134

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme.

methodsRetrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression.

resultsOf 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC.

conclusionsEven though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction. KEY POINTS: • High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC.

Indexed as

Occult BloodAgedColonography, Computed TomographicColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesColon cancerComputed tomographyCT colonography (CTC)EndoscopyFecal occult blood test

Identifiers

PMID27287477

DOI10.1007/s00330-016-4428-x

PMCPMC5306317

OpenAlexW2413045060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

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.