Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37734900›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2023

Patients' experience of using colonoscopy as a diagnostic test after a positive FOBT/FIT: a systematic review of the quantitative literature.

Ghalia Kayal, Robert Kerrison, Yasemin Hirst, Christian von Wagner

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Patient experiences of colon capsule endoscopy: a qualitative study.Therapeutic advances in gastrointestinal endoscopy
    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 4 institutions in 1 country.

Ghalia KayalDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK ghalia.kayal.19@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-6803-5416
Robert KerrisonSchool of Health Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.
Yasemin HirstHealth Technology Assessment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Christian von WagnerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public Health, UCL, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7971-0691
The London College · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Lancashire · GBUniversity of Surrey · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK C68512/A28209
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesFaecal occult blood testing (FOBT) and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are among the most used screening modalities for colorectal cancer (CRC). Colonoscopy is also widely used as a screening and diagnostic test for adults with a positive FOBT/FIT. Patient experience of colonoscopy is an important component for most CRC screening programmes. Individuals with negative experiences are less likely to engage with colonoscopy in the future and can deter others from attending colonoscopy when invited. This review synthesised data on patient experience with colonoscopy, following a positive result, to provide insights into how to improve patient experience within the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched for quantitative questionnaire studies evaluating patient-reported experience with colonoscopy, following a positive screening FOB/FIT result. The search was limited to studies published between 2000 and 2021 (ie, when the first FOBT/FIT screening programmes for CRC were introduced). Data-driven and narrative summary techniques were used to summarise the literature.

resultsIn total, six studies from the UK (n=4), Spain (n=1) and the Netherlands (n=1) were included in the review (total participants: 152 329; response rate: 68.0-79.3%). Patient experiences were categorised into three 'stages': 'pre-colonoscopy', 'during the test' and 'post-colonoscopy'. Overall, patients reported a positive experience in all six studies. Bowel preparation was the most frequently endorsed issue experienced pre-test (experienced by 10.0-41.0% of individuals, across all studies), pain and discomfort for during the test (experienced by 10.0-21.0% of participants) and abdominal pain and discomfort after the test (these were experienced by 14.8-22% of patients).

conclusionThis review highlighted that patient-reported experiences associated with colonoscopy were generally positive. To improve the colonoscopy experience, bowel screening centres should investigate means to: make bowel preparation more acceptable, make colonoscopy less painful and reduce post-colonoscopy symptoms.

Indexed as

Abdominal PainOccult BloodAdultColonoscopyDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansMEDLINECancer painFunctional bowel disordersHealth Services AccessibilityPUBLIC HEALTHQuality in health care

Identifiers

PMID37734900
PMCPMC10514644
OpenAlexW4386923724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.