Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40642567›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2025

A Comparison of the Australian Colonoscopy Care Standards to Current Clinical Practice.

Simona Sarmiento, Rikvin Singh, Jeremy Ripper, Kavitha Subramaniam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Simona SarmientoAustralian National University School of Medicine and Psychology Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.
Rikvin SinghAustralian National University School of Medicine and Psychology Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7576-4529
Jeremy RipperAustralian National University School of Medicine and Psychology Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.
Kavitha SubramaniamAustralian National University School of Medicine and Psychology Canberra Australian Capital Territory Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7828-5398

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Colonoscopy remains the gold standard for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. The Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standards were introduced by the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Healthcare to provide a national consensus on the benchmarks required for colonoscopy care in Australia. Despite these new guidelines being implemented, it is still unknown if they have been successfully adopted by hospitals in Australia. Methods: This mixed-methods study of outpatient colonoscopies from January to May 2022 compared the current clinical practice to the Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standards using quantitative and qualitative data. Thus, taking the first step to address this gap. Results: In this single-center study of adults (≥18 years of age) attending for an outpatient colonoscopy, there were 99 patients included with a mean age of 56 ± 15.2 years, and the majority of participants were female (56.6%). Only 21% of colonoscopies were considered "on time" for their corresponding triage category. An easily accessible documentation of informed consent for colonoscopy was available in 86% of cases. Bowel preparation was adequate in 88% of patients. Withdrawal time was reported in 14 patients and total procedure time was available for the majority ( Discussion: This study has identified a number of areas that could be improved including documentation and availability, specifically of informed consent, discussion of risks and benefits, withdrawal time, timely colonoscopy, and adequate bowel preparation. In conclusion, recommendations would increase compliance with the Colonoscopy Clinical Care Standards, improve patient care and engage in best practice and can also be extrapolated to other healthcare providers.

Indexed as

bowel preparation adequacyclinical care standardscolonoscopydocumentationinformed consenttimely colonoscopy

Identifiers

PMID40642567
PMCPMC12241423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.