Low-Dose Computed Tomographic Colonography Versus Optical Colonoscopy: A Critically Appraised Topic

Seminars in Roentgenology

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 191-195

  El Maraghi, Robert ^a   Kielar, Ania ^b  

^a Royal Victoria Hospital Barrie   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER PATIENT; COLON POLYP; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC COLONOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; RADIATION DOSE;

CATHARTICS; COLONIC POLYPS; COLONOGRAPHY, COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIC; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PROBABILITY; PUBMED; RADIATION DOSAGE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED;

EID: 65749091215     PISSN: 0037198X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.ro.2009.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Rabeneck L. Population-based colorectal cancer screening: An overview of Ontario's program. Oncol Exchange 6 (2007) 25-27
2. Bond J.H. Clinical relevance of the small colorectal polyp. Endoscopy 33 (2001) 454-457
3. Staunton M. Evidence-based radiology: Steps 1 and 2-asking answerable questions and searching for evidence. Radiology 242 (2007) 23-31
4. Haynes R.B. Of studies, summaries, synopses, and systems: The "4S" evolution of services for finding current best evidence. Evidence Based Ment Health 4 (2001) 37-39
5. Florie J., van Gelder R.E., Schutter M.P., et al. Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol 17 (2007) 3112-3122
6. National Health Service Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations (2001), Oxford University, England. http://www.cebm.net/levels_of_evidence.asp Accessed: August 15, 2008
7. Dodd J.D. Evidence-based practice in radiology: Steps 3 and 4-appraise and apply diagnostic radiology literature. Radiology 242 (2007) 342-354
8. Iannaccone R., Laghi A., Catalano C., et al. Detection of colorectal lesions: Lower-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography compared with conventional colonoscopy. Radiology 229 (2003) 775-781
9. Cohnen M., Vogt C., Beck A., et al. Feasibility of MDCT colonography in ultra-low-dose technique in the detection of colorectal lesions: Comparison with high-resolution video colonoscopy. Am J Roentgenol 183 (2004) 1355-1359
10. Iannaccone R., Laghi A., Catalano C., et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology 127 (2004) 1300-1311
11. Iannaccone R., Catalano C., Mangiapane F., et al. Colorectal polyps: Detection with low-dose multi-detector row helical CT colonography versus two sequential colonoscopies. Radiology 237 (2005) 927-937
12. Vogt C., Cohnen M., Beck A., et al. Detection of colorectal polyps by multislice CT colonography with ultra-low-dose technique: Comparison with high-resolution videocolonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 60 (2004) 201-209
13. MacEneaney P.M., and Malone D.E. The meaning of diagnostic test results: A spreadsheet for swift data analysis. Clin Radiol 55 (2000) 227-235
14. van Gelder R.E., Venema H.W., Serlie I.W.O., et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: Feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology 224 (2002) 25-33
15. Huda W. Radiation dosimetry in diagnostic radiology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169 (1997) 1487-1488
16. Wise K.N. Solid cancer risks from radiation exposure for the Australian population. Australas Phys Eng Sci Med 26 (2003) 53-62