Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 10/2012

01-10-2012 | Reviews

Preference for Colonoscopy Versus Computerized Tomographic Colonography: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies

Authors: Otto S. Lin, MD, MSc, Richard A. Kozarek, MD, Michael Gluck, MD, Geoffrey C. Jiranek, MD, Johannes Koch, MD, Kris V. Kowdley, MD, Shayan Irani, MD, Matthew Nguyen, MPH, Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 10/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

In recent years, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening using computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) has attracted considerable attention. In order to better understand patient preferences for CTC versus colonoscopy, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the available literature. Data sources included published studies, abstracts and book chapters, in any language, with publication dates from 1995 through February 2012, and with prospective or retrospective enrollment of diagnostic or screening patients who had undergone both procedures and explicit assessment of their preference for colonoscopy versus CTC. A predefined algorithm identified eligible studies using computer and hand searches performed by two independent investigators. We used a mixed effects model to pool preference differences (defined as the proportion of subjects who preferred CTC minus the proportion who preferred colonoscopy for each study). Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria, totaling 5616 subjects. In 16 of these studies, patients preferred CTC over colonoscopy, while colonoscopy was preferred in three studies. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity, an overall pooled preference difference was not calculated. Stratified analysis revealed that studies published in radiology journals (preference difference 0.590 [95 % CI 0.485, 0.694]) seemed more likely than studies in gastroenterology (0.218 [–0.015–0.451]) or general medicine journals (–0.158 [–0.389-0.072]) to report preference for CTC (p < 0.001). Studies by radiology authors showed a trend towards stronger preference for CTC compared with studies by gastroenterology authors. Symptomatic patients expressed no preference, but screening patients preferred CTC. There was no difference in preferences between studies using “masked” and “unmasked” preference ascertainment methods. Three studies featuring limited bowel preparations for CTC reported marked preference for CTC. There was no evidence of publication bias, while cumulative and exclusion analysis did not show any temporal trend or dominant study. Limitations included data heterogeneity and preference ascertainment limitations. In conclusion, most included studies reported preference for CTC. On stratified analysis, screening patients preferred CTC while diagnostic patients showed no preference. Studies published in radiology journals showed significantly stronger preference for CTC compared with studies in gastroenterology or general medicine journals.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(12):1207–17.PubMedCrossRef Johnson CD, Chen MH, Toledano AY, et al. Accuracy of CT colonography for detection of large adenomas and cancers. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(12):1207–17.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference 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(5):1570–95.PubMedCrossRef 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(5):1570–95.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739–50.PubMedCrossRef Rex DK, Johnson DA, Anderson JC, Schoenfeld PS, Burke CA, Inadomi JM. American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for colorectal cancer screening 2008. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(3):739–50.PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Schenck AP, Peacock SC, Klabunde CN, Lapin P, Coan JF, Brown ML. Trends in colorectal cancer test use in the medicare population, 1998-2005. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(1):1–7.PubMedCrossRef Schenck AP, Peacock SC, Klabunde CN, Lapin P, Coan JF, Brown ML. Trends in colorectal cancer test use in the medicare population, 1998-2005. Am J Prev Med. 2009;37(1):1–7.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. W64.PubMed Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–9. W64.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2000:317. Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Song F. Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. 1st ed. Chichester: Wiley; 2000:317.
7.
go back to reference Gotzsche PC. Patients' preference in indomethacin trials: an overview. Lancet. 1989;1(8629):88–91.PubMedCrossRef Gotzsche PC. Patients' preference in indomethacin trials: an overview. Lancet. 1989;1(8629):88–91.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Lin OS, Gerson LB, Soon MS, Schembre DB, Kozarek RA. Risk of proximal colon neoplasia with distal hyperplastic polyps: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(4):382–90.PubMedCrossRef Lin OS, Gerson LB, Soon MS, Schembre DB, Kozarek RA. Risk of proximal colon neoplasia with distal hyperplastic polyps: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(4):382–90.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):426–45.PubMedCrossRef Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests for moderators in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):426–45.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D, et al. Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):158–67.PubMedCrossRef Jensch S, de Vries AH, Pot D, et al. Image quality and patient acceptance of four regimens with different amounts of mild laxatives for CT colonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(1):158–67.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Von Wagner C, Knight K, Halligan S, et al. Patient experiences of colonoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography: a qualitative study. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):13–9.CrossRef Von Wagner C, Knight K, Halligan S, et al. Patient experiences of colonoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography: a qualitative study. Br J Radiol. 2009;82(973):13–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L, et al. Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. Radiology. 2004;230(2):459–64. Epub 2003 Dec 19.PubMedCrossRef Edwards JT, Mendelson RM, Fritschi L, et al. Colorectal neoplasia screening with CT colonography in average-risk asymptomatic subjects: community-based study. Radiology. 2004;230(2):459–64. Epub 2003 Dec 19.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN, et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(1):32–42.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Slater A, Burling DN, et al. CT colonography: optimisation, diagnostic performance and patient acceptability of reduced-laxative regimens using barium-based faecal tagging. Eur Radiol. 2008;18(1):32–42.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology. 2006;239(1):149–59.PubMedCrossRef Zalis ME, Perumpillichira JJ, Magee C, Kohlberg G, Hahn PF. Tagging-based, electronically cleansed CT colonography: evaluation of patient comfort and image readability. Radiology. 2006;239(1):149–59.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology. 2002;224(2):393–403.PubMedCrossRef Lefere PA, Gryspeerdt SS, Dewyspelaere J, Baekelandt M, Van Holsbeeck BG. Dietary fecal tagging as a cleansing method before CT colonography: initial results polyp detection and patient acceptance. Radiology. 2002;224(2):393–403.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI, et al. CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol. 2009;20(2):367–76.PubMedCrossRef Liedenbaum MH, de Vries AH, Gouw CI, et al. CT colonography with minimal bowel preparation: evaluation of tagging quality, patient acceptance and diagnostic accuracy in two iodine-based preparation schemes. Eur Radiol. 2009;20(2):367–76.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S10–6.PubMedCrossRef Hawley ST, Volk RJ, Krishnamurthy P, Jibaja-Weiss M, Vernon SW, Kneuper S. Preferences for colorectal cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse primary care patients. Med Care. 2008;46(9 Suppl 1):S10–6.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Bomanji JB, Manpanzure L, et al. Nonlaxative PET/CT colonography: feasibility, acceptability, and pilot performance in patients at higher risk of colonic neoplasia. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(6):854–61.PubMedCrossRef Taylor SA, Bomanji JB, Manpanzure L, et al. Nonlaxative PET/CT colonography: feasibility, acceptability, and pilot performance in patients at higher risk of colonic neoplasia. J Nucl Med. 2010;51(6):854–61.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo SE, Yoshida H. Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(7):780–9.PubMedCrossRef Nagata K, Okawa T, Honma A, Endo S, Kudo SE, Yoshida H. Full-laxative versus minimum-laxative fecal-tagging CT colonography using 64-detector row CT: prospective blinded comparison of diagnostic performance, tagging quality, and patient acceptance. Acad Radiol. 2009;16(7):780–9.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Farrell RJ, Morrin MM, Silas A, Raptopoulos V, McGee JB. Virtual colonoscopy in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy: diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance. Gastroenterology. 2000;118(4):A258.CrossRef Farrell RJ, Morrin MM, Silas A, Raptopoulos V, McGee JB. Virtual colonoscopy in patients undergoing elective colonoscopy: diagnostic accuracy and patient tolerance. Gastroenterology. 2000;118(4):A258.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Leung WK, Lam WW, Wu JC, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(1):102–8.PubMedCrossRef Leung WK, Lam WW, Wu JC, et al. Magnetic resonance colonography in the detection of colonic neoplasm in high-risk and average-risk individuals. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(1):102–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Goehde SC, Descher E, Boekstegers A, et al. Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30(5):576–83.PubMedCrossRef Goehde SC, Descher E, Boekstegers A, et al. Dark lumen MR colonography based on fecal tagging for detection of colorectal masses: accuracy and patient acceptance. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30(5):576–83.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Florie J, Birnie E, van Gelder RE, et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy. Radiology. 2007;245(1):150–9.PubMedCrossRef Florie J, Birnie E, van Gelder RE, et al. MR colonography with limited bowel preparation: patient acceptance compared with that of full-preparation colonoscopy. Radiology. 2007;245(1):150–9.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Achiam MP, Logager V, Chabanova E, Thomsen HS, Rosenberg J. Patient acceptance of MR colonography with improved fecal tagging versus conventional colonoscopy. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73(1):143–7. Achiam MP, Logager V, Chabanova E, Thomsen HS, Rosenberg J. Patient acceptance of MR colonography with improved fecal tagging versus conventional colonoscopy. Eur J Radiol. 2010;73(1):143–7.
25.
go back to reference Langhorst J, Kuhle CA, Ajaj W, et al. MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13(8):1001–8.PubMedCrossRef Langhorst J, Kuhle CA, Ajaj W, et al. MR colonography without bowel purgation for the assessment of inflammatory bowel diseases: diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2007;13(8):1001–8.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Kinner S, Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, et al. MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(9):2286–93.PubMedCrossRef Kinner S, Kuehle CA, Langhorst J, et al. MR colonography vs. optical colonoscopy: comparison of patients' acceptance in a screening population. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(9):2286–93.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(3):453–8.PubMed Bielen D, Thomeer M, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Dry preparation for virtual CT colonography with fecal tagging using water-soluble contrast medium: initial results. Eur Radiol. 2003;13(3):453–8.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Pineau BC, Sevick MA, Mikulaninec C, Vining DJ. Evaluation of patient preference: virtual colonoscopy versus Endoscopic. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(4):A486. Pineau BC, Sevick MA, Mikulaninec C, Vining DJ. Evaluation of patient preference: virtual colonoscopy versus Endoscopic. Gastroenterology. 1999;116(4):A486.
29.
go back to reference Forbes GM, Mendelson RM. Patient acceptance of virtual colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2000;32(3):274–5.PubMed Forbes GM, Mendelson RM. Patient acceptance of virtual colonoscopy. Endoscopy. 2000;32(3):274–5.PubMed
30.
go back to reference Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K. Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54(3):310–5.PubMedCrossRef Akerkar GA, Yee J, Hung R, McQuaid K. Patient experience and preferences toward colon cancer screening: a comparison of virtual colonoscopy and conventional colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;54(3):310–5.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology. 2002;222(2):337–45.PubMedCrossRef Svensson MH, Svensson E, Lasson A, Hellstrom M. Patient acceptance of CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy: prospective comparative study in patients with or suspected of having colorectal disease. Radiology. 2002;222(2):337–45.PubMedCrossRef
32.
go back to reference Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol. 2002;12(6):1410–5.PubMedCrossRef Thomeer M, Bielen D, Vanbeckevoort D, et al. Patient acceptance for CT colonography: what is the real issue? Eur Radiol. 2002;12(6):1410–5.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology. 2003;227(2):378–84.PubMedCrossRef Gluecker TM, Johnson CD, Harmsen WS, et al. Colorectal cancer screening with CT colonography, colonoscopy, and double-contrast barium enema examination: prospective assessment of patient perceptions and preferences. Radiology. 2003;227(2):378–84.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(23):2191–200.PubMedCrossRef Pickhardt PJ, Choi JR, Hwang I, et al. Computed tomographic virtual colonoscopy to screen for colorectal neoplasia in asymptomatic adults. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(23):2191–200.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(3):578–85.PubMedCrossRef Ristvedt SL, McFarland EG, Weinstock LB, Thyssen EP. Patient preferences for CT colonography, conventional colonoscopy, and bowel preparation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2003;98(3):578–85.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, Bassett P, Vance M, Bartram CI. Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(4):913–21.PubMed Taylor SA, Halligan S, Saunders BP, Bassett P, Vance M, Bartram CI. Acceptance by patients of multidetector CT colonography compared with barium enema examinations, flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(4):913–21.PubMed
37.
go back to reference Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1713–9.PubMedCrossRef Cotton PB, Durkalski VL, Pineau BC, et al. Computed tomographic colonography (virtual colonoscopy): a multicenter comparison with standard colonoscopy for detection of colorectal neoplasia. JAMA. 2004;291(14):1713–9.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5):1300–11.PubMedCrossRef Iannaccone R, Laghi A, Catalano C, et al. Computed tomographic colonography without cathartic preparation for the detection of colorectal polyps. Gastroenterology. 2004;127(5):1300–11.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology. 2004;233(2):328–37. Epub 2004 Sep 9.PubMedCrossRef van Gelder RE, Birnie E, Florie J, et al. CT colonography and colonoscopy: assessment of patient preference in a 5-week follow-up study. Radiology. 2004;233(2):328–37. Epub 2004 Sep 9.PubMedCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Juchems MS, Ehmann J, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ. A retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance of computed tomography colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") in comparison with conventional colonoscopy in an average risk screening population. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(7):664–70.PubMedCrossRef Juchems MS, Ehmann J, Brambs HJ, Aschoff AJ. A retrospective evaluation of patient acceptance of computed tomography colonography ("virtual colonoscopy") in comparison with conventional colonoscopy in an average risk screening population. Acta Radiol. 2005;46(7):664–70.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Bosworth HB, Rockey DC, Paulson EK, et al. Prospective comparison of patient experience with colon imaging tests. Am J Med. 2006;119(9):791–9.PubMedCrossRef Bosworth HB, Rockey DC, Paulson EK, et al. Prospective comparison of patient experience with colon imaging tests. Am J Med. 2006;119(9):791–9.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP, et al. Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(12):3112–22.PubMedCrossRef Florie J, van Gelder RE, Schutter MP, et al. Feasibility study of computed tomography colonography using limited bowel preparation at normal and low-dose levels study. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(12):3112–22.PubMedCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Rajapaksa RC, Macari M, Bini EJ. Racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with and preferences for computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(11):1306–12.PubMedCrossRef Rajapaksa RC, Macari M, Bini EJ. Racial/ethnic differences in patient experiences with and preferences for computed tomography colonography and optical colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5(11):1306–12.PubMedCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Roberts-Thomson IC, Tucker GR, Hewett PJ, et al. Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(3):469–73.PubMedCrossRef Roberts-Thomson IC, Tucker GR, Hewett PJ, et al. Single-center study comparing computed tomography colonography with conventional colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2008;14(3):469–73.PubMedCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Jung HS, Park DK, Kim MJ, et al. A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Korean J Intern Med. 2009;24(1):43–7.PubMedCrossRef Jung HS, Park DK, Kim MJ, et al. A comparison of patient acceptance and preferences between CT colonography and conventional colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Korean J Intern Med. 2009;24(1):43–7.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference White TJ, Avery GR, Kennan N, Syed AM, Hartley JE, Monson JR. Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer–a prospective trial of 150 patients. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(2):138–45.PubMedCrossRef White TJ, Avery GR, Kennan N, Syed AM, Hartley JE, Monson JR. Virtual colonoscopy vs conventional colonoscopy in patients at high risk of colorectal cancer–a prospective trial of 150 patients. Colorectal Dis. 2009;11(2):138–45.PubMedCrossRef
47.
go back to reference Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 2009;58(2):241–8.PubMedCrossRef Graser A, Stieber P, Nagel D, et al. Comparison of CT colonography, colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy and faecal occult blood tests for the detection of advanced adenoma in an average risk population. Gut. 2009;58(2):241–8.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):146–56.PubMedCrossRef Jensch S, Bipat S, Peringa J, et al. CT colonography with limited bowel preparation: prospective assessment of patient experience and preference in comparison to optical colonoscopy with cathartic bowel preparation. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(1):146–56.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Moawad FJ, Maydonovitch CL, Cullen PA, Barlow DS, Jenson DW, Cash BD. CT colonography may improve colorectal cancer screening compliance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(5):1118–23.PubMedCrossRef Moawad FJ, Maydonovitch CL, Cullen PA, Barlow DS, Jenson DW, Cash BD. CT colonography may improve colorectal cancer screening compliance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(5):1118–23.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Cash BD, Riddle MS, Baumel MJ, et al. Patient opinions of screening CT colonography: Results of a multicenter survey of more than 1400 patients. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):S409. Cash BD, Riddle MS, Baumel MJ, et al. Patient opinions of screening CT colonography: Results of a multicenter survey of more than 1400 patients. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):S409.
51.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.PubMedCrossRef Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–58.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S, et al. Psychosocial influences on older adults' interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med. 2000;31(4):323–34.PubMedCrossRef Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S, et al. Psychosocial influences on older adults' interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med. 2000;31(4):323–34.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(12):3186–94.PubMedCrossRef Harewood GC, Wiersema MJ, Melton LJ 3rd. A prospective, controlled assessment of factors influencing acceptance of screening colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002;97(12):3186–94.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL. Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Prev Med. 2004;38(5):536–50.PubMedCrossRef Subramanian S, Klosterman M, Amonkar MM, Hunt TL. Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review. Prev Med. 2004;38(5):536–50.PubMedCrossRef
55.
go back to reference Lafata JE, Williams LK, Ben-Menachem T, Moon C, Divine G. Colorectal carcinoma screening procedure use among primary care patients. Cancer. 2005;104(7):1356–61.PubMedCrossRef Lafata JE, Williams LK, Ben-Menachem T, Moon C, Divine G. Colorectal carcinoma screening procedure use among primary care patients. Cancer. 2005;104(7):1356–61.PubMedCrossRef
56.
go back to reference Holden DJ, Jonas DE, Porterfield DS, Reuland D, Harris R. Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(10):668–76.PubMed Holden DJ, Jonas DE, Porterfield DS, Reuland D, Harris R. Systematic review: enhancing the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(10):668–76.PubMed
57.
go back to reference Stock C, Haug U, Brenner H. Population-based prevalence estimates of history of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy: review and analysis of recent trends. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(2):366–81. e2.PubMedCrossRef Stock C, Haug U, Brenner H. Population-based prevalence estimates of history of colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy: review and analysis of recent trends. Gastrointest Endosc. 2010;71(2):366–81. e2.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.PubMedCrossRef Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Phillips KA, Marshall JK, Thabane L, Kulin NA. Measuring patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening using a choice-format survey. Value Health. 2007;10(5):415–30.PubMedCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Padron MC, Jimenez B, Urma D, Mitty RD. Patients' preferences and perceptions on virtual and conventional colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(9):S548–9. Padron MC, Jimenez B, Urma D, Mitty RD. Patients' preferences and perceptions on virtual and conventional colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(9):S548–9.
60.
go back to reference Burroughs TE, Waterman BM, Gilin D, Adams D, McCollegan J, Cira J. Do on-site patient satisfaction surveys bias results? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(3):158–66.PubMed Burroughs TE, Waterman BM, Gilin D, Adams D, McCollegan J, Cira J. Do on-site patient satisfaction surveys bias results? Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2005;31(3):158–66.PubMed
61.
go back to reference Gribble RK, Haupt C. Quantitative and qualitative differences between handout and mailed patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care. 2005;43(3):276–81.PubMedCrossRef Gribble RK, Haupt C. Quantitative and qualitative differences between handout and mailed patient satisfaction surveys. Med Care. 2005;43(3):276–81.PubMedCrossRef
62.
go back to reference Hodlewsky RT, Decker FH. The problem of bias when nursing facility staff administer customer satisfaction surveys. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(10):546–54.PubMed Hodlewsky RT, Decker FH. The problem of bias when nursing facility staff administer customer satisfaction surveys. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 2002;28(10):546–54.PubMed
63.
go back to reference von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.CrossRef von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Lancet. 2007;370(9596):1453–7.CrossRef
64.
go back to reference Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.PubMedCrossRef Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25(9):603–5.PubMedCrossRef
65.
go back to reference von Wagner C, Halligan S, Atkin WS, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J. Choosing between CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnostic context: a qualitative study of influences on patient preferences. Health Expect. 2009;12(1):18–26.CrossRef von Wagner C, Halligan S, Atkin WS, Lilford RJ, Morton D, Wardle J. Choosing between CT colonography and colonoscopy in the diagnostic context: a qualitative study of influences on patient preferences. Health Expect. 2009;12(1):18–26.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Angtuaco TL, Banaad-Omiotek GD, Howden CW. Differing attitudes toward virtual and conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: surveys among primary care physicians and potential patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(3):887–93.PubMedCrossRef Angtuaco TL, Banaad-Omiotek GD, Howden CW. Differing attitudes toward virtual and conventional colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: surveys among primary care physicians and potential patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 2001;96(3):887–93.PubMedCrossRef
67.
go back to reference Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, et al. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.PubMedCrossRef Marshall DA, Johnson FR, Kulin NA, et al. How do physician assessments of patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests differ from actual preferences? A comparison in Canada and the United States using a stated-choice survey. Health Econ. 2009;18(12):1420–39.PubMedCrossRef
68.
go back to reference Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(14):1403–12.PubMedCrossRef Kim DH, Pickhardt PJ, Taylor AJ, et al. CT colonography versus colonoscopy for the detection of advanced neoplasia. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(14):1403–12.PubMedCrossRef
69.
go back to reference Ho W, Broughton DE, Donelan K, Gazelle GS, Hur C. Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):393–7.PubMedCrossRef Ho W, Broughton DE, Donelan K, Gazelle GS, Hur C. Analysis of barriers to and patients' preferences for CT colonography for colorectal cancer screening in a nonadherent urban population. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010;195(2):393–7.PubMedCrossRef
70.
go back to reference Scott RG, Edwards JT, Fritschi L, Foster NM, Mendelson RM, Forbes GM. Community-based screening by colonoscopy or computed tomographic colonography in asymptomatic average-risk subjects. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(6):1145–51.PubMedCrossRef Scott RG, Edwards JT, Fritschi L, Foster NM, Mendelson RM, Forbes GM. Community-based screening by colonoscopy or computed tomographic colonography in asymptomatic average-risk subjects. Am J Gastroenterol. 2004;99(6):1145–51.PubMedCrossRef
71.
go back to reference Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Brenner AR, Pignone MP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:4.PubMedCrossRef Griffith JM, Lewis CL, Brenner AR, Pignone MP. The effect of offering different numbers of colorectal cancer screening test options in a decision aid: a pilot randomized trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:4.PubMedCrossRef
72.
go back to reference Jones LE, Cash BD, Stamps K. Computed tomographic colonography increases colorectal cancer screening compliance. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):S565–6. Jones LE, Cash BD, Stamps K. Computed tomographic colonography increases colorectal cancer screening compliance. Gastroenterology. 2011;140(5):S565–6.
Metadata
Title
Preference for Colonoscopy Versus Computerized Tomographic Colonography: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies
Authors
Otto S. Lin, MD, MSc
Richard A. Kozarek, MD
Michael Gluck, MD
Geoffrey C. Jiranek, MD
Johannes Koch, MD
Kris V. Kowdley, MD
Shayan Irani, MD
Matthew Nguyen, MPH
Jason A. Dominitz, MD, MHS
Publication date
01-10-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 10/2012
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2115-4

Other articles of this Issue 10/2012

Journal of General Internal Medicine 10/2012 Go to the issue

Clinical Practice: Clinical Images

DNR Tattoos: A Cautionary Tale

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.