Costs of finding an advanced adenoma in colorectal screening.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Biomedical subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Jerome B Simon.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Computerized tomographic (CT) colography is an exciting technique whereby images of the colonic wall and lumen can be obtained without colonoscopy. It is not as good as conventional colonoscopy, however, because of both inherent and performance limitations. Among the former is the inability to visualize subtle mucosal lesions, such as alterations in colour or pliability. More importantly, CT colography is strictly a diagnostic technique, and does not allow biopsy or removal of polyps. The vigorous bowel preparation required for this procedure can be very unpleasant for the patient, and includes purgatives followed by distension of the colon with air. Unlike with colonoscopy, adherent stool can be difficult to distinguish radiologically from polyps or cancers; as a result, many patients require colonoscopy anyway. The major performance limitations of CT colography are poor sensitivity and specificity compared with conventional colonoscopy. Rectal lesions, flat adenomas and diminutive adenomas are especially difficult to detect, and false-positive results are also common. In addition, the procedure is expensive and less cost effective than colonoscopy. CT colography takes relatively little patient time, but a substantial amount of time is needed for the radiologist to interpret the images. Interobserver variability is high. For all of these reasons, CT colography cannot be recommended as a screening test for colorectal neoplasia.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a quality of life instrument for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). METHODS: Using focus groups, existing questionnaires, and literature reviews, five IBS patients and nine gastroenterologists compiled and pilot tested for content validity a 70-item questionnaire. The questionnaire was then administered to 107 IBS patients, and using these data, the 70-item questionnaire was reduced to 36 questions through statistical and consensus methodology. The IBS-36 questionnaire was tested for construct validity, reliability, reproducibility, and responsiveness using a gold standard of structured interviews by three gastroenterologists, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Quality of Life Questionnaire, and the Coping Resource Inventory. RESULTS: The IBS-36 consists of 36 questions scored on a 7-point Likert scale. It has a very high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.95) and a high test-retest reliability (Spearman's r = 0.92) and correlates as hypothesized with the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.001), McGill pain scores (p < 0.001), and IBS patient-reported sleep, symptom, and pain scores (ps = 0.030, <0.001, and <0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The IBS-36 addresses all areas of quality of life affected by IBS and is easy to administer and score. The IBS-36 is a well-validated, condition-specific quality of life measure for IBS patients that is sensitive to clinical intervention and highly correlated with established quality of life measures and patient-reported symptom scores.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.