View in EDS PDF Full Text

Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.
Authors: Plumb, Andrew1 andrew.plumb@ucl.ac.uk, Ghanouni, Alex2, Rees, Colin3, Hewitson, Paul4, Nickerson, Claire5, Wright, Suzanne5, Taylor, Stuart1, Halligan, Steve1, Wagner, Christian2, Plumb, Andrew A6 (AUTHOR), Rees, Colin J7 (AUTHOR), Taylor, Stuart A6 (AUTHOR), von Wagner, Christian8 (AUTHOR)
Source: European Radiology. Mar2017, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p1052-1063. 12p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts, 2 Graphs.
Subjects: Computed tomography, Colonoscopy, Fecal occult blood tests, Logistic regression analysis, Patient satisfaction
Abstract: Objective: To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme.Methods: Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression.Results: Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79 %) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9 %) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7 %, p < 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7 %) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0 %, p < 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3 %: colonoscopy = 57.0 %, p < 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6 %, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8 %; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2 %; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1 %), but generally less serious with CTC.Conclusions: Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction.Key Points: • High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
Text:
  Availability: 0
Header DbId: egs
DbLabel: Engineering Source
An: 121148708
AccessLevel: 6
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Plumb%2C+Andrew%22&quot;&gt;Plumb, Andrew&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;1&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;i&gt; andrew.plumb@ucl.ac.uk&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Ghanouni%2C+Alex%22&quot;&gt;Ghanouni, Alex&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;2&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Rees%2C+Colin%22&quot;&gt;Rees, Colin&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;3&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Hewitson%2C+Paul%22&quot;&gt;Hewitson, Paul&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;4&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Nickerson%2C+Claire%22&quot;&gt;Nickerson, Claire&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;5&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Wright%2C+Suzanne%22&quot;&gt;Wright, Suzanne&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;5&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Taylor%2C+Stuart%22&quot;&gt;Taylor, Stuart&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;1&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Halligan%2C+Steve%22&quot;&gt;Halligan, Steve&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;1&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Wagner%2C+Christian%22&quot;&gt;Wagner, Christian&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;2&lt;/relatesTo&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Plumb%2C+Andrew+A%22&quot;&gt;Plumb, Andrew A&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;6&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Rees%2C+Colin+J%22&quot;&gt;Rees, Colin J&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;7&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Taylor%2C+Stuart+A%22&quot;&gt;Taylor, Stuart A&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;6&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22von+Wagner%2C+Christian%22&quot;&gt;von Wagner, Christian&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;relatesTo&gt;8&lt;/relatesTo&gt; (AUTHOR)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;JN&quot; term=&quot;%22European+Radiology%22&quot;&gt;European Radiology&lt;/searchLink&gt;. Mar2017, Vol. 27 Issue 3, p1052-1063. 12p. 1 Diagram, 4 Charts, 2 Graphs.
– Name: Subject
  Label: Subjects
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Computed+tomography%22&quot;&gt;Computed tomography&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Colonoscopy%22&quot;&gt;Colonoscopy&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Fecal+occult+blood+tests%22&quot;&gt;Fecal occult blood tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Logistic+regression+analysis%22&quot;&gt;Logistic regression analysis&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Patient+satisfaction%22&quot;&gt;Patient satisfaction&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: &lt;bold&gt;Objective: &lt;/bold&gt;To investigate patient experience of CT colonography (CTC) and colonoscopy in a national screening programme.&lt;bold&gt;Methods: &lt;/bold&gt;Retrospective analysis of patient experience postal questionnaires. We included screenees from a fecal occult blood test (FOBt) based screening programme, where CTC was performed when colonoscopy was incomplete or deemed unsuitable. We analyzed questionnaire responses concerning communication of test risks, test-related discomfort and post-test pain, as well as complications. CTC and colonoscopy responses were compared using multilevel logistic regression.&lt;bold&gt;Results: &lt;/bold&gt;Of 67,114 subjects identified, 52,805 (79&#160;%) responded. Understanding of test risks was lower for CTC (1712/1970 = 86.9&#160;%) than colonoscopy (48783/50975 = 95.7&#160;%, p &lt; 0.0001). Overall, a slightly greater proportion of screenees found CTC unexpectedly uncomfortable (506/1970 = 25.7&#160;%) than colonoscopy (10,705/50,975 = 21.0&#160;%, p &lt; 0.0001). CTC was tolerated well as a completion procedure for failed colonoscopy (unexpected discomfort; CTC = 26.3&#160;%: colonoscopy = 57.0&#160;%, p &lt; 0.001). Post-procedural pain was equally common (CTC: 288/1970,14.6&#160;%, colonoscopy: 7544/50,975,14.8&#160;%; p = 0.55). Adverse event rates were similar in both groups (CTC: 20/2947 = 1.2&#160;%; colonoscopy: 683/64,312 = 1.1&#160;%), but generally less serious with CTC.&lt;bold&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/bold&gt;Even though CTC was reserved for individuals either unsuitable for or unable to complete colonoscopy, we found only small differences in test-related discomfort. CTC was well tolerated as a completion procedure and was extremely safe. CTC can be delivered across a national screening programme with high patient satisfaction.&lt;bold&gt;Key Points: &lt;/bold&gt;• High patient satisfaction at CTC is deliverable across a national screening programme. • Patients who cannot tolerate screening colonoscopy are likely to find CTC acceptable. • CTC is extremely safe; complications are rare and almost never serious. • Patients may require more detailed information regarding the expected discomfort of CTC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
– Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright
  Label:
  Group: Ab
  Data: &lt;i&gt;Copyright of European Radiology is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder&#39;s express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.&lt;/i&gt; (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=121148708
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s00330-016-4428-x
    Languages:
      – Code: eng
        Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 12
        StartPage: 1052
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Computed tomography
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Colonoscopy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Fecal occult blood tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logistic regression analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Patient satisfaction
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Patient experience of CT colonography and colonoscopy after fecal occult blood test in a national screening programme.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Plumb, Andrew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ghanouni, Alex
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rees, Colin
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Hewitson, Paul
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nickerson, Claire
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wright, Suzanne
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taylor, Stuart
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Halligan, Steve
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wagner, Christian
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Plumb, Andrew A
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rees, Colin J
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Taylor, Stuart A
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: von Wagner, Christian
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 03
              Text: Mar2017
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 09387994
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 27
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: European Radiology
              Type: main
ResultId 1