The impact of bowel cleansing on follow-up recommendations in average-risk patients with a normal colonoscopy

American Journal of Gastroenterology

Volumn 109, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 148-154

  Menees, Stacy B ^a   Elliott, Eric ^a   Govani, Shail ^a   Anastassiades, Constantinos ^b   Judd, Stephanie ^c   Urganus, Annette ^d   Boyce, Suzanna ^e   Schoenfeld, Philip ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HEALTH SYSTEM   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS OF CLEVELAND   (United States)

^c WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d JESSE BROWN VA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e DUKE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; CATHARTICS; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATABASES, FACTUAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ODDS RATIO; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; REFERENCE VALUES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; THERAPEUTIC IRRIGATION; TIME FACTORS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84893775059     PISSN: 00029270     EISSN: 15720241     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.243     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology 2008; 134: 1570-95.
2. Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC et al. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2009 [corrected]. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 739-50.
3. Krist AH, Jones RM, Woolf SH et al. Timing of repeat colonoscopy: disparity between guidelines and endoscopists ' recommendation. Am J Prev Med 2007; 33: 471-8.
4. Goodwin JS, Singh A, Reddy N et al. Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171: 1335-43.
5. Saini SD, Nayak RS, Kuhn L et al. Why don't gastroenterologists follow colon polyp surveillance guidelines?: results of a national survey. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009; 43: 554-8.
6. Quality Program Highlights in 2013 Proposed Medicare Rules 2012 [cited 2012 July 12]. Available from: http://www.gastro.org/journals-publications/aga- edigest/archive/aga-edigest-july-12-2012.
7. Fisher D, Grubber JM, Grambow S et al. Factors associated with nonadherence to colonoscopy interval guidelines in an integrated managed care system. Gastroenterology 2012; 142 (Suppl): A344.
8. Harewood GC, Sharma VK, de Garmo P. Impact of colonoscopy preparation quality on detection of suspected colonic neoplasia. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: 76-9.
9. Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ et al. Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378-84.
10. Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12: 6161-6.
11. Bowles CJ, Leicester R, Romaya C et al. A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow? Gut 2004; 53: 277-83.
12. Ben-Horin S, Bar-Meir S, Avidan B. The impact of colon cleanliness assessment on endoscopists ' recommendations for follow-up colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2680-5.
13. Larsen M, Hills N, Terdiman J. The impact of the quality of colon preparation on follow-up colonoscopy recommendations. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 2058-62.
14. Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 81-105.
15. Graham JW, Collins NL, Donaldson SI et al. Understanding and controlling for response bias: confi rmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data Steyer R, Wender KF, & Widamen KF (eds) Psychometric Methodology. Stuttgart: New York, 1993, pp 585-90.
16. Donaldson SI, Grant-Vallone EJ. Understanding self-report bias in organization behavior research. J Bus Psychol 2002; 17: 245-60.
17. Ransohoff DF, Yankaskas B, Gizlice Z et al. Recommendations for post-polypectomy surveillance in community practice. Dig Dis Sci 2011; 56: 2623-30.
18. Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright H et al. Validation of an instrument to assess colon cleansing. Am J Gastroenterol 1999; 94: 2667.
19. Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR et al. Impact of bowel preparation on effi ciency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696-700.
20. Bond JH. Should the quality of preparation impact postcolonoscopy followup recommendations? Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 2686-7.
21. Levin TR. Dealing with uncertainty: surveillance colonoscopy aft er polypectomy. Am J Gastroenterol 2007; 102: 1745-7.
22. Rex DK, Bond JH, Feld AD. Medical-legal risks of incident cancers aft er clearing colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 952-7.
23. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance aft er screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US multi-society task force on colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2012; 143: 844-57.
24. McCarney R, Warner J, Iliffe S et al. The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 30.
25. Fox NS, Brennan JS, Chasen ST. Clinical estimation of fetal weight and the Hawthorne effect. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2008; 141: 111-4.
26. Zeglis M, Chang M, Kim HM et al. Effect of bowel preparation quality on screening interval aft er a normal screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2006; 63: AB197.
27. Cohen LB. Split dosing of bowel preparations for colonoscopy: an analysis of its effi cacy, safety, and tolerability. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 406-12.
28. Gagovic V, Rex DK. Gastroenterologists' patient instructions for oral sodium phosphate solution for colonoscopy preparation: a survey among gastroenterologists in the state of Indiana. J Clin Gastroenterol 2008; 42: 1070-3.
29. Unger RZ, Amstutz SP, Seoda H et al. Willingness to undergo split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy and compliance with split-dose instructions. Dig Dis Sci 2010; 55: 2030-4.
30. Rostom A, Jolicoeur E. Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482-6.
31. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69 (3 Part 2): 620-5.