ArticlePloS one2020
A survey on colonoscopy shows poor understanding of its protective value and widespread misconceptions across Europe.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- 1L NER1006 can improve rates of adequate and high-quality bowel cleansing in the right colon: a post hoc analysis of two randomised clinical trials.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Trial
- Effects of white and pink noise administered before and during colonoscopy on pain and anxiety: a randomized controlled trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- A Guideline-Concordant Chatbot Framework for Structured Colorectal Cancer Screening: Multistage Feasibility Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Development and Effectiveness Evaluation of 360-Degree Virtual Reality-Based Educational Intervention for Adult Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Applicability of Online Chat-Based Artificial Intelligence Models to Colorectal Cancer Screening.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2024Article
- Creation of a Métis-Specific Instrument for Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Cancer-Screening Programs and Instruments.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Involvement in treatment decision-making and self-reported efficacy among patients with advanced colorectal cancer: a nationwide multi-center cross-sectional study.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- History of colonoscopy and technological advances: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023Review
- Article
- Examining the Factors That Affect the Diagnosis of Patients with Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Results.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Could a Behavioral Model Explain Adherence to Second-Level Colonoscopy for Colon Cancer Screening? Results of a Cross-Sectional Study of the Palermo Province Population.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comparing Colon Capsule Endoscopy to colonoscopy; a symptomatic patient's perspective.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Presence of Metabolic Syndrome and Thyroid Nodules in Subjects with Colorectal Polyps.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021Article
- Factors affecting the follow-up time after a positive result in the fecal occult blood test.PloS one · 2021Article
- The Impact of Sedation on Adenoma Detection Rate and Cecal Intubation Rate in Colonoscopy.Gastroenterology research and practice · 2020Article
- Review
- Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire.Annals of family medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColonoscopy is a valuable screening tool for colorectal cancer. However, patients experience anxiety when faced with attending a first colonoscopy, and negative attitudes may contribute to non-attendance. Few studies in Europe have explored these attitudes, despite increasing colorectal cancer incidence. STUDY
aimWe conducted an online survey of the public in five European Union countries (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the UK), with the aim of understanding public knowledge of, perceptions of, and attitudes towards, colonoscopy and bowel preparation, amongst colonoscopy-naïve respondents. Attitudes towards colonoscopy were also gathered from colonoscopy-experienced patients.
methodsSurvey answers were gathered from 2,500 colonoscopy-naïve respondents and 500 colonoscopy-experienced patients, divided equally between countries.
resultsAcross Europe, 72% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents showed receptiveness to colonoscopy if advised by their doctor to receive one, but only 45% understood its use to prevent colorectal cancer. Forty-three percent of colonoscopy-experienced respondents would still be embarrassed about having another colonoscopy, although 59% said that the experience had been better than expected. Colonoscopy-experienced respondents had greater aversion to bowel preparation than colonoscopy-naïve respondents (47% vs 26%), and 67% of colonoscopy-naïve respondents thought that only 1 litre of bowel preparation or less is required. Italians and the Spanish wanted more information than on average in Europe, while Germans had more realistic expectations of bowel preparation. DISCUSSION: There are perceptual gaps amongst the public around the purpose of colonoscopies, the subjective experience of the colonoscopy procedure, and the quantity of bowel preparation needed. These concerns could be mitigated by better education and using lower-volume bowel preparation techniques.
conclusionEuropeans would have a colonoscopy, but its preventive medical purpose is poorly understood and there are misconceptions around the process. Further education about the procedure, its benefits and bowel preparation is vital to improve understanding and compliance.
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.