| Title |
Split-Dose Bowel Preparation Reduces the Need for Early Repeat Colonoscopy Without Improving Adenoma Detection Rate
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-017-4877-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li Wang, Brandon S. Sprung, Arthur J. DeCross, Danielle Marino |
| Abstract |
Split-dose bowel preparation is associated with improved mucosal visualization and patient tolerance, becoming a standard of care. However, quality measures data associated with this preparation are limited. At our academic tertiary-care facility, we aim to study the effect of changing from single- to split-dose preparation on colonoscopy quality measures. A retrospective cohort study with quality indicators was conducted using electronic medical record data. Cases were identified via ICD9 code V76.51, "Special screening for malignant neoplasms of colon." Single-dose preparation data was collected from 9/1/13 to 8/31/14. Split-dose preparation was implemented 11/2014, and data were collected from 1/1/15 to 8/31/15. A total of 1602 colonoscopies in the single-dose group and 1061 colonoscopies in the split-dose group were analyzed. The Boston Bowel Preparation Scale was significantly improved in the split-dose group 8.64 ± SD 1.25 versus 8.25 ± SD 1.61, p < 0.001. There was no significant difference in adenoma detection rate 40.7% (95% CI 37.8-43.7%) versus 40.5% (95% CI 38.1-42.9%), p = 0.92; however, the rate for recommending an early repeat examination due to an inadequate bowel preparation was significantly decreased to 3.9% (95% CI 2.7-5.0%) versus 8.9% (95% CI 1.52-2.97%), p < 0.001. While split-dose preparation significantly improves overall bowel cleanliness, there is no significant adenoma detection rate improvement with high baseline rate, suggesting a threshold which may not improve with enhanced preparations. Split-dose preparation significantly reduces the frequency with which inadequate preparation prompts an early repeat examination, which has important clinical implications on performance, costs, and patient experience, providing further evidence supporting split-dose preparation use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 24 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Librarian | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 42% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 8% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 8% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#21,358,731
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#3,790
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#381,547
of 445,288 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#45
of 53 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 445,288 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 53 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.