1
|
Jacobson BC, Anderson JC, Burke CA, Dominitz JA, Gross SA, May FP, Patel SG, Shaukat A, Robertson DJ. Optimizing bowel preparation quality for colonoscopy: consensus recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastrointest Endosc 2025; 101:702-732. [PMID: 40047767 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2025.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2024] [Indexed: 04/07/2025]
Abstract
This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian C Jacobson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Joseph C Anderson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA; University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA
| | - Carol A Burke
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA; Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | - Folasade P May
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA; Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Swati G Patel
- University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA; Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Aasma Shaukat
- GI Section, Minneapolis VA Medical Center and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Jacobson BC, Anderson JC, Burke CA, Dominitz JA, Gross SA, May FP, Patel SG, Shaukat A, Robertson DJ. Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2025; 120:738-764. [PMID: 40035345 DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2024] [Indexed: 03/05/2025]
Abstract
This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology, the American Gastroenterological Association, and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian C Jacobson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Joseph C Anderson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA
- Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
- University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut, USA
| | - Carol A Burke
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | | | - Folasade P May
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California, USA
- Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Swati G Patel
- University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
- Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Aasma Shaukat
- GI Section, Minneapolis VA Medical Center and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont, USA
- Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Jacobson BC, Anderson JC, Burke CA, Dominitz JA, Gross SA, May FP, Patel SG, Shaukat A, Robertson DJ. Optimizing Bowel Preparation Quality for Colonoscopy: Consensus Recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2025; 168:798-829. [PMID: 40047732 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/24/2025]
Abstract
This document is an update to the 2014 recommendations for optimizing the adequacy of bowel cleansing for colonoscopy from the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, which represents the American College of Gastroenterology and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. The US Multi-Society Task Force developed consensus statements and key clinical concepts addressing important aspects of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. The majority of consensus statements focus on individuals at average risk for inadequate bowel preparation. However, statements addressing individuals at risk for inadequate bowel preparation quality are also provided. The quality of a bowel preparation is defined as adequate when standard screening or surveillance intervals can be assigned based on the findings of the colonoscopy. We recommend the use of a split-dose bowel preparation regimen and suggest that a 2 L regimen may be sufficient. A same-day regimen is recommended as an acceptable alternative for individuals undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, but we suggest that a same-day regimen is an inferior alternative for individuals undergoing morning colonoscopy. We recommend limiting dietary restrictions to the day before a colonoscopy, relying on either clear liquids or low-fiber/low-residue diets for the early and midday meals. We suggest the adjunctive use of oral simethicone for bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Routine tracking of the rate of adequate bowel preparations at the level of individual endoscopists and at the level of the endoscopy unit is also recommended, with a target of >90% for both rates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brian C Jacobson
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.
| | - Joseph C Anderson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire; University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Farmington, Connecticut
| | - Carol A Burke
- Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Jason A Dominitz
- Gastroenterology Section, VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington; Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | | | - Folasade P May
- Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, Los Angeles, California; Vatche and Tamar Manoukian Division of Digestive Diseases and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Swati G Patel
- University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado; Rocky Mountain Regional Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado
| | - Aasma Shaukat
- GI Section, Minneapolis VA Medical Center and University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Douglas J Robertson
- VA Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Ho YM, Merollini KMD, Gordon LG. Frequency of colorectal surveillance colonoscopies for adenomatous polyps: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2024; 39:37-46. [PMID: 37967829 DOI: 10.1111/jgh.16397] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/02/2023] [Revised: 08/14/2023] [Accepted: 10/18/2023] [Indexed: 11/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM The purpose of this study was to assess evidence on the frequency of polyp surveillance colonoscopies performed earlier than the recommended follow-up intervals in clinical practice guidelines. METHODS A systematic review was performed based on electronic searches in PubMed and Embase. Research articles, letters to the editors, and review articles, published before April 2022, were included. Studies that focused on the intervals of polyp surveillance in adult populations were selected. The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Exposure (ROBINS-E) was used to assess the risk of bias. A meta-analysis was performed with Forest plots to illustrate the results. RESULTS In total, 16 studies, comprising 11 172 patients from Australia, Europe, and North America, were included for analysis. The quality of the studies was moderate. Overall, 38% (95% CI: 30-47%) of colonoscopies were undertaken earlier than their respective national clinical guidelines. In risk-stratified surveillance, 10 studies contained data relating to low-risk polyp surveillance intervals and 30% (95% CI: 29-31%) of colonoscopies were performed earlier than recommended. Eight studies contained data relating to intermediate-risk polyp surveillance and 15% (95% CI: 14-17%) of colonoscopies were performed earlier than recommended. One study showed that 6% (95% CI: 4-10%) of colonoscopies performed for high-risk polyp surveillance were performed earlier than recommended. CONCLUSIONS A significant proportion of polyp surveillance was performed earlier than the guidelines suggested. This provides evidence of the potential overuse of healthcare resources and the opportunity to improve hospital efficiency.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yiu Ming Ho
- Department of Surgery, The Prince Charles Hospital, Chermside, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland, Australia
- School of Medicine, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
| | - Katharina M D Merollini
- School of Health, University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia
- Sunshine Coast Health Institute, Sunshine Coast University Hospital, Birtinya, Queensland, Australia
| | - Louisa G Gordon
- Department of Health Economics, Department of Population Health, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston, Queensland, Australia
- School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia
- School of Nursing, The Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Frazzoni L, La Marca M, DI Giorgio V, Laterza L, Bazzoli F, Hassan C, Fuccio L. Endoscopic surveillance after surgery for colorectal cancer. Minerva Med 2023; 114:224-236. [PMID: 32573518 DOI: 10.23736/s0026-4806.20.06732-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/08/2022]
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers worldwide and its global incidence is rapidly increasing among adults younger than 50 years, especially in the 20-39 age group. Once a curative resection is achieved, surveillance is mandatory. Colonoscopy has a pivotal role aimed at resecting premalignant neoplasms and detecting cancer at a curable stage. In the current review, an update on the role of surveillance colonoscopy after CRC is provided, considered the most recent international guidelines and evidence published on this issue. In particular, several questions have been answered, why, how and how often colonoscopy should be performed, whether intensive surveillance is more effective than standard surveillance, how endoscopically resected T1 cancer should be followed, the different management existing between colon and rectal cancer, and, finally, how to improve the endoscopic surveillance. In a period of resource constraints, appropriateness will be mandatory, thus understanding how to optimize the role of colonoscopy in the surveillance of patients with a history of CRC is of crucial importance. Improving the quality of colonoscopy and identifying risk factors for recurrent and new-onset CRC, will allow us to individualize the surveillance program while sparing health care cost.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leonardo Frazzoni
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Marina La Marca
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Valentina DI Giorgio
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Liboria Laterza
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Franco Bazzoli
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy
| | - Cesare Hassan
- Unit of Endoscopy, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy
| | - Lorenzo Fuccio
- Unit of Gastroenterology, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, S. Orsola-Malpighi University Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy -
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Shahini E, Sinagra E, Vitello A, Ranaldo R, Contaldo A, Facciorusso A, Maida M. Factors affecting the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy in hard-to-prepare patients: Evidence from the literature. World J Gastroenterol 2023; 29:1685-1707. [PMID: 37077514 PMCID: PMC10107216 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v29.i11.1685] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2022] [Revised: 02/02/2023] [Accepted: 03/07/2023] [Indexed: 03/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Adequate bowel cleansing is critical for a high-quality colonoscopy because it affects diagnostic accuracy and adenoma detection. Nevertheless, almost a quarter of procedures are still carried out with suboptimal preparation, resulting in longer procedure times, higher risk of complications, and higher likelihood of missing lesions. Current guidelines recommend high-volume or low-volume polyethylene glycol (PEG)/non-PEG-based split-dose regimens. In patients who have had insufficient bowel cleansing, the colonoscopy should be repeated the same day or the next day with additional bowel cleansing as a salvage option. A strategy that includes a prolonged low-fiber diet, a split preparation regimen, and a colonoscopy within 5 h of the end of preparation may increase cleansing success rates in the elderly. Furthermore, even though no specific product is specifically recommended in the other cases for difficult-to-prepare patients, clinical evidence suggests that 1-L PEG plus ascorbic acid preparation are associated with higher cleansing success in hospitalized and inflammatory bowel disease patients. Patients with severe renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance < 30 mL/min) should be prepared with isotonic high volume PEG solutions. Few data on cirrhotic patients are currently available, and no trials have been conducted in this population. An accurate characterization of procedural and patient variables may lead to a more personalized approach to bowel preparation, especially in patients undergoing resection of left colon lesions, where intestinal preparation has a poor outcome. The purpose of this review was to summarize the evidence on the risk factors influencing the quality of bowel cleansing in difficult-to-prepare patients, as well as strategies to improve colonoscopy preparation in these patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Endrit Shahini
- Gastroenterology Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology-IRCCS “Saverio de Bellis”, Castellana Grotte, Bari 70013, Italy
| | - Emanuele Sinagra
- Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, Fondazione Istituto G. Giglio, Cefalù 90015, Italy
| | - Alessandro Vitello
- Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, S.Elia-Raimondi Hospital, Caltanissetta 93100, Italy
| | - Rocco Ranaldo
- Department of Internal Medicine, “Mazzolani-Vandini” Hospital, Digestive Endoscopy, Ferrara 744011, Italy
| | - Antonella Contaldo
- Gastroenterology Unit, National Institute of Gastroenterology “S de Bellis” Research Hospital, Bari 70013, Italy
| | - Antonio Facciorusso
- Department of Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, Section of Gastroenterology, Foggia 71122, Italy
| | - Marcello Maida
- Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Unit, S.Elia-Raimondi Hospital, Caltanissetta 93100, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Calderwood AH, Holub JL, Greenwald DA. Recommendations for follow-up interval after colonoscopy with inadequate bowel preparation in a national colonoscopy quality registry. Gastrointest Endosc 2022; 95:360-367.e2. [PMID: 34563501 PMCID: PMC10802146 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2021.09.027] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/30/2021] [Accepted: 09/12/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS Endoscopist recommendations regarding a repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel cleanliness have not been fully described. Our aim was to evaluate the timing of recommendations for repeat colonoscopy after inadequate bowel preparation using a large, national colonoscopy registry. METHODS We performed a cross-sectional analysis of all outpatient screening and surveillance colonoscopies among adults ages 50 to 75 reported in the GI Quality Improvement Consortium from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome was a recommendation to repeat colonoscopy within 1 year. Secondary outcomes were recommendations based on indication of colonoscopy and colonoscopy findings and predictors of a recommendation to follow-up within 1 year. RESULTS There were 260,314 colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation performed at 672 different sites by 4001 endoscopists. Of these, 31.9% contained a recommendation for follow-up within 1 year. This did not differ meaningfully by examination indication. The severity of colonoscopy findings influenced the recommendations for follow-up (within 1 year in 84.0% of cases with adenocarcinoma, 51.8% with any advanced lesion, and 23.2% with 1-2 small adenomas). Younger age, more severe pathology, location in the Northeast, and performance by an endoscopist with an adenoma detection rate ≥25% were associated with recommendations for follow-up within 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Only some colonoscopies with inadequate bowel preparation are recommended to be repeated within 1 year, which may have implications for potential missed lesions. Further understanding of reasons driving recommendations is an important next step to improving guideline-concordant colonoscopy practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Audrey H. Calderwood
- Department of Medicine, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
- The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and the Dartmouth Institute of Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Zhou J, Wu L, Wan X, Shen L, Liu J, Zhang J, Jiang X, Wang Z, Yu S, Kang J, Li M, Hu S, Hu X, Gong D, Chen D, Yao L, Zhu Y, Yu H. A novel artificial intelligence system for the assessment of bowel preparation (with video). Gastrointest Endosc 2020; 91:428-435.e2. [PMID: 31783029 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 99] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2019] [Accepted: 11/19/2019] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS The quality of bowel preparation is an important factor that can affect the effectiveness of a colonoscopy. Several tools, such as the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) and Ottawa Bowel Preparation Scale, have been developed to evaluate bowel preparation. However, understanding the differences between evaluation methods and consistently applying them can be challenging for endoscopists. There are also subjective biases and differences among endoscopists. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a novel, objective, and stable method for the assessment of bowel preparation through artificial intelligence. METHODS We used a deep convolutional neural network to develop this novel system. First, we retrospectively collected colonoscopy images to train the system and then compared its performance with endoscopists via a human-machine contest. Then, we applied this model to colonoscopy videos and developed a system named ENDOANGEL to provide bowel preparation scores every 30 seconds and to show the cumulative ratio of frames for each score during the withdrawal phase of the colonoscopy. RESULTS ENDOANGEL achieved 93.33% accuracy in the human-machine contest with 120 images, which was better than that of all endoscopists. Moreover, ENDOANGEL achieved 80.00% accuracy among 100 images with bubbles. In 20 colonoscopy videos, accuracy was 89.04%, and ENDOANGEL continuously showed the accumulated percentage of the images for different BBPS scores during the withdrawal phase and prompted us for bowel preparation scores every 30 seconds. CONCLUSIONS We provided a novel and more accurate evaluation method for bowel preparation and developed an objective and stable system-ENDOANGEL-that could be applied reliably and steadily in clinical settings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jie Zhou
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Lianlian Wu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Xinyue Wan
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Lei Shen
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Jun Liu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Jun Zhang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Xiaoda Jiang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Zhengqiang Wang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Shijie Yu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Jian Kang
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Ming Li
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Shan Hu
- School of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Xiao Hu
- School of Resources and Environmental Sciences, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Dexin Gong
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Di Chen
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Liwen Yao
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Yijie Zhu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| | - Honggang Yu
- Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Key Laboratory of Hubei Province for Digestive System Disease, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China; Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Impact of Colonoscopy Bowel Preparation Quality on Follow-up Interval Recommendations for Average-risk Patients With Normal Screening Colonoscopies: Data From the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. J Clin Gastroenterol 2018; 54:356-364. [PMID: 30106836 PMCID: PMC6374206 DOI: 10.1097/mcg.0000000000001115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS National guidelines for colonoscopy screening and surveillance assume adequate bowel preparation. We used New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry (NHCR) data to investigate the influence of bowel preparation quality on endoscopist recommendations for follow-up intervals in average-risk patients following normal screening colonoscopies. METHODS The analysis included 9170 normal screening colonoscopies performed on average risk individuals aged 50 and above between February 2005 and September 2013. The NHCR Procedure Form instructs endoscopists to score based on the worst prepped segment after clearing all colon segments, using the following categories: excellent (essentially 100% visualization), good (very unlikely to impair visualization), fair (possibly impairing visualization), and poor (definitely impairing visualization). We categorized examinations into 3 preparation groups: optimal (excellent/good) (n=8453), fair (n=598), and poor (n=119). Recommendations other than 10 years for examinations with optimal preparation, and >1 year for examinations with poor preparation, were considered nonadherent. RESULTS Of all examinations, 6.2% overall received nonadherent recommendations, including 5% of examinations with optimal preparation and 89.9% of examinations with poor preparation. Of normal examinations with fair preparation, 20.7% of recommendations were for an interval <10 years. Among those examinations with fair preparation, shorter-interval recommendations were associated with female sex, former/nonsmokers, and endoscopists with adenoma detection rate ≥20%. CONCLUSIONS In 8453 colonoscopies with optimal preparations, most recommendations (95%) were guideline-adherent. No guideline recommendation currently exists for fair preparation, but in this investigation into community practice, the majority of the fair preparation group received 10-year follow-up recommendations. A strikingly high proportion of examinations with poor preparation received a follow-up recommendation greater than the 1-year guideline recommendation. Provider education is needed to ensure that patients with poor bowel preparation are followed appropriately to reduce the risk of missing important lesions.
Collapse
|
10
|
Maratt JK, Menees SB, Piper MS, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Saini SD. Patients Are Willing to Repeat Colonoscopy at a Short Interval When Bowel Preparation Quality Is Suboptimal. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018; 16:776-777. [PMID: 28987507 PMCID: PMC5886830 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/19/2017] [Revised: 09/23/2017] [Accepted: 09/30/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer K. Maratt
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI,Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Stacy B. Menees
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI,Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Marc S. Piper
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher
- Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI,Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| | - Sameer D. Saini
- Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI,Ann Arbor Veterans Affairs Hospital, Ann Arbor, MI,Veterans Affairs Center for Clinical Management Research (CCMR), Ann Arbor, MI,Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Anderson JC, Baron JA, Ahnen DJ, Barry EL, Bostick RM, Burke CA, Bresalier RS, Church TR, Cole BF, Cruz-Correa M, Kim AS, Mott LA, Sandler RS, Robertson DJ. Factors Associated With Shorter Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals for Patients With Low-Risk Colorectal Adenomas and Effects on Outcome. Gastroenterology 2017; 152:1933-1943.e5. [PMID: 28219690 PMCID: PMC6251057 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.02.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/27/2016] [Revised: 02/08/2017] [Accepted: 02/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Endoscopists do not routinely follow guidelines to survey individuals with low-risk adenomas (LRAs; 1-2 small tubular adenomas, < 1 cm) every 5-10 years for colorectal cancer; many recommend shorter surveillance intervals for these individuals. We aimed to identify the reasons that endoscopists recommend shorter surveillance intervals for some individuals with LRAs and determine whether timing affects outcomes at follow-up examinations. METHODS We collected data from 1560 individuals (45-75 years old) who participated in a prospective chemoprevention trial (of vitamin D and calcium) from 2004 through 2008. Participants in the trial had at least 1 adenoma, detected at their index colonoscopy, and were recommended to receive follow-up colonoscopy examinations at 3 or 5 years after adenoma identification, as recommended by the endoscopist. For this analysis we collected data from only participants with LRAs. These data included characteristics of participants and endoscopists and findings from index and follow-up colonoscopies. Primary endpoints were frequency of recommending shorter (3-year) vs longer (5-year) surveillance intervals, factors associated with these recommendations, and effect on outcome, determined at the follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS A 3-year surveillance interval was recommended for 594 of the subjects (38.1%). Factors most significantly associated with recommendation of 3-year vs a 5-year surveillance interval included African American race (relative risk [RR] to white, 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14-1.75), Asian/Pacific Islander ethnicity (RR to white, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.22-2.43), detection of 2 adenomas at the index examination (RR vs 1 adenoma, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.27-1.71), more than 3 serrated polyps at the index examination (RR=2.16, 95% CI, 1.59-2.93), or index examination with fair or poor quality bowel preparation (RR vs excellent quality, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.66-2.83). Other factors that had a significant association with recommendation for a 3-year surveillance interval included family history of colorectal cancer and detection of 1-2 serrated polyps at the index examination. In comparisons of outcomes, we found no significant differences between the 3-year vs 5-year recommendation groups in proportions of subjects found to have 1 or more adenomas (38.8% vs 41.7% respectively; P = .27), advanced adenomas (7.7% vs 8.2%; P = .73) or clinically significant serrated polyps (10.0% vs 10.3%; P = .82) at the follow-up colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS Possibly influenced by patients' family history, race, quality of bowel preparation, or number or size of polyps, endoscopists frequently recommend 3-year surveillance intervals instead of guideline-recommended intervals of 5 years or longer for individuals with LRAs. However, at the follow-up colonoscopy, similar proportions of participants have 1 or more adenomas, advanced adenomas, or serrated polyps. These findings support the current guideline recommendations of performing follow-up examinations of individuals with LRAs at least 5 years after the index colonoscopy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joseph C. Anderson
- Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont;,Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - John A Baron
- Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire;,Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Dennis J. Ahnen
- Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Gastroenterology of the Rockies, Denver and Boulder, Colorado
| | - Elizabeth L. Barry
- Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - Roberd M. Bostick
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, and Winship Cancer Institute, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Carol A. Burke
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Robert S. Bresalier
- Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas
| | - Timothy R. Church
- Division of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Public Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Bernard F. Cole
- Interim Dean and Professor of Statistics in the College of Engineering and Mathematical Sciences, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont
| | - Marcia Cruz-Correa
- Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, Puerto Rico
| | - Adam S. Kim
- Minnesota Gastroenterology, P.A., Minneapolis, Minnesota
| | - Leila A. Mott
- Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - Robert S. Sandler
- Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
| | - Douglas J. Robertson
- Department of Medicine, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont;,Department of Epidemiology for ELB, JAB, and LM and Department of Medicine in the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology for JCA and DJR, The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Saltzman JR, Cash BD, Pasha SF, Early DS, Muthusamy VR, Khashab MA, Chathadi KV, Fanelli RD, Chandrasekhara V, Lightdale JR, Fonkalsrud L, Shergill AK, Hwang JH, Decker GA, Jue TL, Sharaf R, Fisher DA, Evans JA, Foley K, Shaukat A, Eloubeidi MA, Faulx AL, Wang A, Acosta RD. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81:781-94. [PMID: 25595062 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.048] [Citation(s) in RCA: 292] [Impact Index Per Article: 29.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2014] [Accepted: 09/18/2014] [Indexed: 01/10/2023]
|
13
|
Abstract
GOAL To determine whether Excellent bowel cleansing is superior to Good for the detection of adenomas. BACKGROUND High quality colonoscopy requires Adequate bowel preparation. However, it is unknown whether adenoma detection differs between subcategories of Adequate cleansing. STUDY We utilized a retrospective, cross-sectional study design to obtain data about patients undergoing colonoscopy at a single university center between August 31, 2011 and September 1, 2012. Primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR), the percentage of patients with ≥1 adenoma. Secondary outcomes included adenomas per colonoscopy, adenoma distribution (proximal vs. distal), and detection of advanced adenomas, sessile serrated polyps (SSP), and cancer. RESULTS The electronic medical record of 5113 consecutive colonoscopies with Good or Excellent preparation was queried for preparation quality, colonoscopy indication, demographics, medical history, and history of adenoma and colon cancer. Exclusion criteria were age below 18 years, inflammatory bowel disease, or familial polyposis. Adenoma detection was not superior with Excellent cleansing as compared with Good for ADR [respectively, 26% vs. 29%, odds ratio 0.97 (0.85, 1.11), P=0.618] or adenomas per colonoscopy [respectively, 0.437 vs. 0.499, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07), P=0.705]. Excellent cleansing demonstrated superior detection of SSPs [IRR 1.66 (1.14, 2.40), P=0.008] and advanced adenomas [IRR 1.37 (1.09, 1.72), P=0.007] but not colon cancer [odds ratio 0.286 (0.083, 0.985), P=0.0474]. CONCLUSIONS ADR is not significantly different between the Adequate subcategories of Excellent and Good. However, Excellent cleansing is associated with superior detection of advanced adenomas and SSPs. If confirmed, achieving an Excellent preparation may improve colonoscopy performance in the proximal colon where SSPs primarily occur.
Collapse
|
14
|
|
15
|
Calderwood AH, Schroy PC, Lieberman DA, Logan JR, Zurfluh M, Jacobson BC. Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores provide a standardized definition of adequate for describing bowel cleanliness. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80:269-76. [PMID: 24629422 PMCID: PMC4104141 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 142] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/13/2013] [Accepted: 01/14/2014] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Establishing a threshold of bowel cleanliness below which colonoscopies should be repeated at accelerated intervals is important, yet there are no standardized definitions for an adequate preparation. OBJECTIVE To determine whether Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) scores could serve as a standard definition of adequacy. DESIGN Cross-sectional observational analysis of colonoscopy data from 36 adult GI endoscopy practices and prospective survey showing 4 standardized colonoscopy videos with varying degrees of bowel cleanliness. SETTING The Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative. PATIENTS Average-risk patients attending screening colonoscopy. INTERVENTIONS Colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS Recommended follow-up intervals among average-risk, screening colonoscopies without polyps stratified by BBPS scores. RESULTS We evaluated 2516 negative screening colonoscopies performed by 74 endoscopists. If the BBPS score was ≥2 in all 3 segments (N = 2295), follow-up was recommended in 10 years in 90% of cases. Examinations with total BBPS scores of 3 to 5 (N = 167) had variable recommendations. Follow-up within 1 year was recommended for 96% of examinations with total BBPS scores of 0 to 2 (N = 26). Similar results were noted among 167 participants in a video survey with pre-established BBPS scores. LIMITATIONS Retrospective study. CONCLUSION BBPS scores correlate with endoscopist behavior regarding follow-up intervals for colonoscopy. A total BBPS score ≥6 and/or all segment scores ≥2 provides a standardized definition of adequate for 10-year follow-up, whereas total scores ≤2 indicate that a procedure should be repeated within 1 year. Future work should focus on finding consensus for management of examinations with total scores of 3 to 5.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Audrey H Calderwood
- Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Paul C Schroy
- Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - David A Lieberman
- Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Judith R Logan
- Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Michael Zurfluh
- Division of Gastroenterology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA
| | - Brian C Jacobson
- Section of Gastroenterology, Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Abstract
Approximately half of the children with ulcerative colitis (UC) have refractory, relapsing or steroid-dependent disease. UC in children is more extensive than in adults, presents more often with severe attacks and carries a more aggressive disease course. Therefore, although a step-up approach is usually recommended in UC, aggressive therapy will often be indicated in children since steroid dependency should never be tolerated. It is vital to ensure that in every resistant case, the symptoms are truly related to the inflammatory disease activity and not to other conditions such as poor adherence to treatment, infections, adverse reactions to drugs, irritable bowel syndrome, lactose intolerance, celiac disease and bacterial overgrowth. The clinician should be ready to escalate therapy in a timely manner but only after ensuring optimization of current treatments. Optimization may include, among others, appropriate dosage, utilization of assays that determine thiopurine, calcineurin inhibitors and anti-tumor necrosis factor levels, introduction of combination therapy when indicated (enemas and immunomodulators) and a long enough time for treatment to become effective. Colectomy is always a valid option and should be discussed before major treatment escalations. Experimental therapies can be considered when all else fails and the family prefers to avoid colectomy. The management of refractory and relapsing disease is particularly challenging in children, and this review summarizes the available evidence to guide treatment decisions in this setup.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Dan Turner
- Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition Unit, Shaare Zedek Medical Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Lebwohl B, Neugut AI. Post-colonoscopy recommendations after inadequate bowel preparation: all in the timing. Dig Dis Sci 2013; 58:2135-7. [PMID: 23817926 PMCID: PMC3755877 DOI: 10.1007/s10620-013-2758-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2013] [Accepted: 06/12/2013] [Indexed: 02/08/2023]
|