Skjul metadata

dc.date.accessioned2018-03-27T14:44:54Z
dc.date.available2018-03-27T14:44:54Z
dc.date.created2017-06-27T12:22:59Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.identifier.citationHoff, Geir Holme, Øyvind Bretthauer, Michael Sandvei, Per Darre-Næss, Ole Stallemo, Asbjørn Wiig, Håvard Høie, Ole Ingebreth Noraberg, Geir Moritz, Volker de Lange, Thomas . Cecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopy. Endoscopy International Open. 2017, 5(6), E489-E495
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10852/61335
dc.description.abstractBackground and study aims: Some guidelines recommend a minimum standard of 90 % cecal intubation rate (CIR) in routine clinics and 95 % in screening colonoscopy, while others have not made this distinction – both with limited evidence to support either view. This study questions the rationale for making such differentiation. Patients and methods: We assessed cecum intubation rates amongst colonoscopies recorded in the Norwegian national quality register Gastronet by 35 endoscopists performing both clinical and screening colonoscopies. Colonoscopies were categorized into primary screening colonoscopy, work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives and clinical colonoscopy or surveillance. Cases with insufficient bowel preparation or mechanical obstruction were excluded. Endoscopists were categorized into “junior” and “senior” endoscopists depending on training and experience. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were applied. Results: During a 2-year period, 10,267 colonoscopies were included (primary screening colonoscopy: 746; work-up colonoscopy of screen-positives: 2,604; clinical colonoscopy or surveillance: 6917). The crude CIR in clinical routine colonoscopy, primary screening colonoscopy and work-up colonoscopy was 97.1 %, 97.1 % and 98.6 %, respectively. In a multiple logistic regression analysis, there were no differences in CIR between the 3 groups. Poor bowel cleansing and female sex were independent predictors for intubation failure. Conclusion: Cecal intubation rate in clinical colonoscopies and colonoscopy screening are similar. There is no reason to differentiate between screening and clinical colonoscopy with regard to CIR.en_US
dc.languageEN
dc.publisherThieme
dc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
dc.titleCecum intubation rate as quality indicator in clinical versus screening colonoscopyen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.creator.authorHoff, Geir
dc.creator.authorHolme, Øyvind
dc.creator.authorBretthauer, Michael
dc.creator.authorSandvei, Per
dc.creator.authorDarre-Næss, Ole
dc.creator.authorStallemo, Asbjørn
dc.creator.authorWiig, Håvard
dc.creator.authorHøie, Ole Ingebreth
dc.creator.authorNoraberg, Geir
dc.creator.authorMoritz, Volker
dc.creator.authorde Lange, Thomas
cristin.unitcode185,52,0,0
cristin.unitnameInstitutt for helse og samfunn
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.cristin1479151
dc.identifier.bibliographiccitationinfo:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.jtitle=Endoscopy International Open&rft.volume=5&rft.spage=E489&rft.date=2017
dc.identifier.jtitleEndoscopy International Open
dc.identifier.volume5
dc.identifier.issue6
dc.identifier.startpageE489
dc.identifier.endpageE495
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-106180
dc.identifier.urnURN:NBN:no-63945
dc.type.documentTidsskriftartikkelen_US
dc.type.peerreviewedPeer reviewed
dc.source.issn2196-9736
dc.identifier.fulltextFulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/61335/1/Hoff%2B2017_cecal%2Bintubation.pdf
dc.type.versionPublishedVersion


Tilhørende fil(er)

Finnes i følgende samling

Skjul metadata

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Dette verket har følgende lisens: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International