Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29843628›Full record

ArticleBMC gastroenterology2018

"Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka".

Yasara Samarakoon, Nalika Gunawardena, Aloka Pathirana, Sumudu Hewage

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 38% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yasara SamarakoonNational Cancer Control Programme, No.555, Public Health Building Complex, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo, 5, Sri Lanka.
Nalika GunawardenaWorld Health Organization Country Office for Sri Lanka, No. 5, Anderson road, Colombo, 5, Sri Lanka.
Aloka PathiranaDepartment of surgery, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Jayewardenepura, Sri Lanka.
Sumudu HewageNational Cancer Control Programme, No.555, Public Health Building Complex, Elvitigala Mawatha, Colombo, 5, Sri Lanka. sumuduavanthi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8079-4338
National Hospital of Sri Lanka · LKOpen University of Sri Lanka · LKUniversity of Sri Jayewardenepura · LK

Funding

Medical Research Institute Sri Lanka 2015/025.World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to finite resources, the clinical decision to subject a patient to colonoscopy needs to be based on the evidence, regardless of its availability, affordability and safety. This study assessed the appropriateness of colonoscopies conducted in selected study settings in Sri Lanka. In the absence of local guidelines, audit was based on European Panel on Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy II (EPAGE II) criteria.

methodsThis cross-sectional study assessed consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy between June to August 2015 at four main hospitals in Sri Lanka. Interviewer administered questionnaire and secondary data were collected by trained health staff. Indications were assessed according to EPAGE II criteria.

resultsOut of 325 patients, male female proportions were 57.2 and 42.8%. Mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.1) years. Colonoscopies were appropriate in 61.2% (95% CI 55.8-66.3), uncertain in 28.6% (95% CI 23.9-33.7) and inappropriate in 10.2% (95% CI 7.3-13.9). Colonoscopy to evaluate abdominal pain has highest percentage of inappropriateness of 10.0%. However, 9.5% of these colonoscopies revealed Colo-Rectal Cancer (CRC), reflecting differences in the profile of local CRC patients. Colonoscopies with appropriate or uncertain indications are three times more likely to have a relevant finding than inappropriate indications (42.5% vs. 18.2%; OR 3.32, 95% CI 1.33-8.3; P = 0.008).

conclusionsMajority of colonoscopies are appropriate. However, it cannot be neglected that every one in ten patients undergo inappropriate colonoscopy. Proportion of inappropriateness was highest for the indication of chronic abdominal pain, of which, 9.5% of patients were diagnosed with CRC. This may reflect the different profile of local CRC patients in terms of symptom manifestation and other characteristics. In conclusion, the authors recommend formulation of national guidelines for colonoscopy indications based on current best evidence and local patient profile. Use of such prepared local guidelines will improve the efficient use of finite resources.

Indexed as

Abdominal PainAdultAgedColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloping CountriesFemaleGastrointestinal HemorrhageHealth ResourcesHumansMaleMedical AuditMiddle AgedRectal DiseasesSri Lanka

Identifiers

PMID29843628
PMCPMC5975517
OpenAlexW2805035258

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.