Patient acceptance of magnetic resonance colonography: Prospective comparison to conventional colonoscopy;Patientenakzeptanz der MR-kolonographie: Eine prospektive erhebung im vergleich zur konventionellen koloskopie

Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift

Volumn 131, Issue 45, 2006, Pages 2519-2523

  Hartmann, D ^a,b   Bassler, B ^a   Pfeifer, B ^a   Eickhoff, A ^a   Weickert, U ^a   Riemann, J F ^a   Layer, C ^a  

^a Klinikum der Stadt   (Germany)

^b Medizinische Klinik C   (Germany)

Author keywords

Colonoscopy; MR colonography; Patient acceptance

Indexed keywords

ELECTROLYTE;

ABDOMINAL PRESSURE; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BODY POSITION; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NAUSEA; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; PAIN; PATIENT ATTITUDE; QUESTIONNAIRE;

AGED; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; MALE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 33751524369     PISSN: 00120472     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-955043     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Ajaj W, Pelster G, Treichel U et al. Dark lumen magnetic resonance colonography: comparison with conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal pathology. Gut 2003; 52: 1738-1743
2. Angtuaco TL, Banaad-Omiotek GD, Howden CW. Differing attitudes toward virtual and conventional coloscopy for colorectal cancer screening: Surveys among primary care physicians and potential patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 887-893
3. Becker CR, Schatzl M, Feist H. Strahlenexposition während CT-Untersuchungen des Thorax und Abdomens. Vergleich von Sequenz, Spiral und Elektronenstrahl Computertomographie. Radiologe 1998; 38: 726-729
4. Eickhoff A, Riemann JF. Gesundheitsökonomische Aspekte des Kolonkarzinoms: Prävention/Behandlung oder Nachsorge - welches ist der günstigste Ansatz? Gesundh Ökon Qual Manag 2002; 7: 232-240
5. Frommer DJ. What's new in colorectal cancer screening? J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1998; 13: 528-533
6. Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: Prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology 2003; 227: 378-384
7. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al. Incomplete conventional colonoscopy: Magnetic Resonance Colonography in the evaluation of the proximal colon. Endoscopy 2005; 37: 816-820
8. Hartmann D, Bassler B, Schilling D et al. Prospective comparision of dark lumen MR colonography and conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colorectal polyps. Radiology 2006; 238: 143-149
9. Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C. Detection of colorectal lesions: Lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 2003; 229: 775-781
10. Lauenstein TC, Goehde SC, Debatin JF. Fecal tagging: MR colonography without colonic cleansing. Abdom Imaging 2002; 27: 410-417
11. Lauenstein TC, Rüh SG, Debatin JF. Aktuelle Standards der MR-Kolonographie. Fortschr Geb Röntgenstrahlen Neuen Bildgeb Verfahren 2003; 175: 334-341
12. Luboldt W, Bauerfeind P, Wildermuth S, Marincek B, Fried M, Debatin JF. Colonic masses: Detection with MR colonography. Radiology 2000; 216: 383-388
13. Pappalardo G, Polettini E, Frattaroli FM et al. Magnetic resonance colonography versus conventional colonoscopy for the detection of colonic endoluminal lesions. Gastroenterology 2000; 119: 300-304
14. Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ et al. Virtual colonoscopy using oral contrast compared with colonoscopy for the detection of patients with colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 2003; 125: 304-310
15. Rex DK, Cutler CS, Lemmel GT et al. Colonoscopic miss rates of adenomas determined by back-to-back colonoscopies. Gastroenterology 1997; 112: 24-28
16. Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol 2003; 98: 578-585
17. Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional coloscopy: Prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology 2002; 222: 337-345
18. Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1410-1415
19. Van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology 2004; 233: 328-337
20. Vernon SW. Participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 1997; 98: 1406-1422
21. Winawer SJ, Zauber AG, O'Brien MJ et al. Randomized comparison of surveillance intervals after colonoscopic removal of newly diagnosed adenomatous polyps. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 901-906