Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32437402›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

A survey on colonoscopy shows poor understanding of its protective value and widespread misconceptions across Europe.

Bharat Amlani, Franco Radaelli, Pradeep Bhandari

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. History of colonoscopy and technological advances: a narrative review.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Examining the Factors That Affect the Diagnosis of Patients with Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Results.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Presence of Metabolic Syndrome and Thyroid Nodules in Subjects with Colorectal Polyps.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

3 authors.

Bharat AmlaniNorgine Ltd., Medical Affairs, Harefield, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-7384-7857
Franco RadaelliEndoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Valduce Hospital, Como, Italy.
Pradeep BhandariDepartment of Gastroenterology, Portsmouth University Hospital, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ColonoscopyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultCatharticsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedCathartics

Identifiers

PMID32437402
PMCPMC7241766

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.