ArticleJournal of clinical gastroenterology2020
Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.
Article in Journal of clinical gastroenterology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05709145 (Written Endoscopist Recommendation to Improve Adherence to Early Repeat Colonoscopy Within 1 Year in Patients With Inadequate Bowel Preparation.), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
Written Endoscopist Recommendation to Improve Adherence to Early Repeat Colonoscopy Within 1 Year in Patients With Inadequate Bowel Preparation.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of polyethylene glycol in combination with different doses of linaclotide in a fractionated bowel preparation for colonoscopy: a prospective randomized controlled study.International journal of colorectal disease · 2024Trial
- Written Recommendation to Repeat Colonoscopy within 1 Year after Inadequate Bowel Preparation: A Simple and Highly Effective Intervention.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- A Prospective Randomized Study to Predict Bowel Preparation Quality Prior to Colonoscopy: Comparison of Two Stool Collection Methods for the Objective Assessment of Final Rectal Effluent Clarity.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Which is the better polyp detection metric: adenomas per colonoscopy or adenoma detection rate? A simulation modeling study.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Barriers against Implementation of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Performance Measures for Colonoscopy in Clinical Practice.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of a Mobile Health Application for Educating Outpatients about Bowel Preparation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Endoscopist adenomas-per-colonoscopy detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Clinically significant serrated polyp detection rates and risk for postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer: data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Colonoscopy utilization and outcomes in older adults: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2022Observational
- Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Cancer Screening Test Receipt - United States, 2018.MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report · 2021Article
- Efficacy and Patient Tolerability of Split-Dose Sodium Picosulfate/Magnesium Citrate (SPMC) Oral Solution Compared to the Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution for Bowel Preparation in Outpatient Colonoscopy: An Evidence-Based Review.Clinical and experimental gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Update in Surveillance Recommendations in Individuals With Conventional Adenomas.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsNational guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance assume adequate bowel preparation. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) data to investigate the influence of bowel preparation quality on endoscopist recommendations for follow-up intervals in average-risk patients following normal screening colonoscopies.
methodsThe analysis included 9170 normal screening colonoscopies performed on average risk individuals aged 50 and above between February 2005 and September 2013. The NHCR Procedure Form instructs endoscopists to score based on the worst prepped segment after clearing all colon segments, using the following categories: excellent (essentially 100% visualization), good (very unlikely to impair visualization), fair (possibly impairing visualization), and poor (definitely impairing visualization). We categorized examinations into 3 preparation groups: optimal (excellent/good) (n=8453), fair (n=598), and poor (n=119). Recommendations other than 10 years for examinations with optimal preparation, and >1 year for examinations with poor preparation, were considered nonadherent.
resultsOf all examinations, 6.2% overall received nonadherent recommendations, including 5% of examinations with optimal preparation and 89.9% of examinations with poor preparation. Of normal examinations with fair preparation, 20.7% of recommendations were for an interval <10 years. Among those examinations with fair preparation, shorter-interval recommendations were associated with female sex, former/nonsmokers, and endoscopists with adenoma detection rate ≥20%.
conclusionsIn 8453 colonoscopies with optimal preparations, most recommendations (95%) were guideline-adherent. No guideline recommendation currently exists for fair preparation, but in this investigation into community practice, the majority of the fair preparation group received 10-year follow-up recommendations. A strikingly high proportion of examinations with poor preparation received a follow-up recommendation greater than the 1-year guideline recommendation. Provider education is needed to ensure that patients with poor bowel preparation are followed appropriately to reduce the risk of missing important lesions.
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.