ArticleCanadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology2016
Assessment of a Colonoscopy Triage Sheet for Use in a Province-Wide Population-Based Colorectal Screening Program.
Article in Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reducing endoscopic procedure backlog by improving efficiency: a predictive model and machine learning-based scheduling approach.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- How can we better identify patients with rectal bleeding who are at high risk of colorectal cancer? An observational study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2022Observational
- Strategies to Improve Follow-up After Positive Fecal Immunochemical Tests in a Community-Based Setting: A Mixed-Methods Study.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Scoring colorectal cancer risk with an artificial neural network based on self-reportable personal health data.PloS one · 2019Article
- The evaluation of risk-benefit ratio for gut tissue sampling in HIV cure research.Journal of virus eradication · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims. A colonoscopy triage sheet (CTS) integrating 6 hierarchical scheduling priorities based on indications for screening, surveillance, or symptoms was designed for colonoscopy referral. We compared CTS priority ratings by referring physicians and endoscopists, assessing yields. Methods. Retrospective study of consecutive patients. Data were collected on demographics, CTS and endoscopist priority ratings, and endoscopic findings. Weighted kappa values measured interrater agreement on priority assignment. Predictors of agreement and lesions were identified using multivariable analysis. Results. Among 1230 patients (60.3 years, 52.5% female), clinically significant lesions included tumors (1.1%), polyps per patient ≥ 10 mm (7.6%), and ileocolitis (4.6%). Moderate agreement was found between referring physician and endoscopist on all 6 priorities (weighted kappa 0.55 (0.51; 0.59)). P4 and P5 ratings predicted increased agreement (range of OR for P4: 2.47-4.57; P5: 1.58-2.93). Predictors of clinically significant findings were male gender (OR 1.44, 1.03-2.03) and P1/P2 priorities that were significantly superior to P3 (OR = 2.14; 1.04-4.43), P4 (OR = 2.90; 1.35-6.23), and P5 (OR = 4.30; 2.08-8.88). Conclusion. Priority-assignment agreement is moderate and highest for less urgent ratings. Predictors of clinically significant findings validate the hierarchal priority scheme. Broader validation and physician education are needed.
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.