Download PDF
Endoscopy 2002; 34(5): 360-368
DOI: 10.1055/s-2002-25277
Original Article

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Do Explicit Appropriateness Criteria Enhance the Diagnostic Yield of Colonoscopy?

V.  de Bosset 1 , F.  Froehlich 1 , J.-P.  Rey 2 , J.  Thorens 3 , C.  Schneider 1 , V.  Wietlisbach 4 , J.-P.  Vader 4 , B.  Burnand 4 , B.  Muhlhaupt 5 , M.  Fried 5 , J.  J.  Gonvers 1
  • 1Division of Gastroenterology, Medical Outpatient Department PMU/CHU, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 2Gastroenterology Practice, Delémont, Switzerland
  • 3Gastroenterology Practice, Yverdon-les-Bains, Switzerland
  • 4Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Lausanne, Switzerland
  • 5Department of Gastroenterology, University of Zurich, Switzerland
Further Information

Publication History

3 April 2001

25 October 2001

Publication Date:
22 April 2002 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Background and Study Aims: Appropriateness of use of colonoscopy is an important issue in health care in the quest to improve quality of care while at the same time containing costs. This prospective study examined whether detailed and explicit appropriateness criteria significantly improve the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy.
Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients referred for diagnostic colonoscopy at five centers (one university hospital and its outpatient department, two district hospitals, and two gastroenterology practices) were prospectively studied over a 17-month period. The appropriateness of the indications for these colonoscopies was assessed using explicit Swiss criteria developed by the Rand Corporation/University of California at Los Angeles (RAND/UCLA) panel method, and the relationship between appropriateness of use and the presence of clinically relevant endoscopic lesions was analysed.
Results: 1188 patients were included in the study. Indications for 1144 (96.3 %) of the colonoscopies could be evaluated using explicit criteria; 64.1 % of the colonoscopies were judged appropriate, 13.3 % uncertain and 22.6 % inappropriate. Significant endoscopic lesions were found in 23.8 % of the colonoscopies. Colonoscopies judged appropriate or uncertain yielded significantly more relevant lesions than did those judged to be inappropriate (25.6 % vs. 17.4 %; P = 0.007). Of 51 colon cancers, all but one were found in colonoscopies judged to be appropriate or uncertain. In a multivariate analysis, the diagnostic yield of colonoscopy was significantly influenced by appropriateness, patient gender and treatment setting.
Conclusions: The use of detailed and explicit appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy significantly enhances the identification of relevant lesions and in particular of colon cancer. The use of such criteria could therefore improve patient selection for colonoscopy and thus contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of care.

References

  • 1 Rosenberg W, Donald A. Evidence based medicine an approach to clinical problem-solving.  BMJ. 1995;  310 1122- 1126
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brook R H, Chassin M R, Fink A. et al .A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Santa Monica, California; Rand 1991
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Brook R H, Chassin M, Fink A. et al . A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies.  Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;  21 53-63
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Park R E, Fink A, Brook R H. et al . Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures.  Am J Public Health. 1986;  76 (7) 766-772
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Brook R H. Appropriateness: the next frontier.  BMJ. 1994;  308 218-219
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Brook R H, Park R E, Chassin M R. et al . Predicting the appropriate use of carotid endarterectomy, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and coronary angiography.  N Engl J Med. 1990;  323 (17) 1173-1177
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 DiMagno E P, Bond J H. Colonoscopy in policy and procedure manual for gastrointestinal endoscopy.  The American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Manchester (MA), 1992.. 1998;  30 9-12
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Department of Health Care and Promotion CMA . Workshop on Clinical Practice Guidelines: summary of proceedings.  Can Med Assoc J. 1993;  148 1459-1462
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kahn K L, Park R E, Vennes J. et al . Assigning appropriateness ratings for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using two different approaches.  Med Care. 1992;  30 (11) 1016-1028
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Woolf S H. Practice guidelines, a new reality in medicine. II. Methods of developing guidelines.  Arch Intern Med. 1992;  152 946-952
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Morrissey J F, Reichelderfer M. Gastrointestinal endoscopy-first of two parts.  N Engl J Med. 1991;  325 1142-1149
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Morrissey J F. The problem of the inappropriate endoscopy.  Ann Intern Med. 1988;  109 (8) 605-606
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Gonvers J J, Burnand B, Froehlich F. et al . Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit (see comments).  Endoscopy. 1996;  28 (8) 661-666
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Minoli G, Prada A, Gambetta G. et al . The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open access system.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1995;  42 387-389
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Mahajan R J, Barthel J S, Marshall J B. Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy.  Arch Intern Med. 1996;  156 2065-2069
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Froehlich F, Burnand B, Pache I. et al . Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1997;  45 (1) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Kahn K L, Kosecoff J, Chassin M R. et al . The use and misuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Ann Intern Med. 1988;  109 (8) 664-670
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Brook R H, Park R E, Chassin M R. et al . Predicting the appropriate use of carotid endarterectomy, upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and coronary angiography.  N Engl J Med. 1990;  323 (17) 1173-1177
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Quine M A, McCloy R F, Devlin B H. et al . Appropriate use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy - a prospective audit.  Gut. 1994;  35 1209-1214
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Vader J P, Pache I, Froehlich F. et al . Overuse and underuse of colonoscopy in a European primary care setting.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 593-599
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Froehlich F, Pache I, Burnand B. et al . Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study.  Gastrointest Endosc. 1998;  48 128-136
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Mahajan R J, Barthel J S, Marshall J B. Appropriateness of referrals for open-access endoscopy. How do physicians in different medical specialties do?.  Arch Int Med. 1996;  156 (18) 2065-2069
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Minoli G, Meucci G, Bortoli A. et al . The ASGE guidelines for the appropriate use of colonoscopy in an open access system.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  52 39-44
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 24 Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G. et al . Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2001;  54 175-179
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 25 Naji S A, Brunt P W, Hagen S. et al . Improving the selection of patients for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.  Gut. 1993;  34 187-191
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 26 Holdstock G, Harman M, Machin D. et al . Prospective testing of a scoring system designed to improve case selection for upper gastrointestinal investigation.  Gastroenterology. 1986;  90 (5:Pt1) 1164-1169
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 27 Chassin M R, Kosecoff J, Solomon D H. et al . How coronary angiography is used. Clinical determinants of appropriateness.  JAMA. 1987;  258 1-5
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 28 Korkis A M, McDougall C J. Rectal bleeding in patients less than 50 years of age.  Dig Dis Sci. 1995;  40 (7) 1520-1523.
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 29 Shinya H, Cwern M, Wolf G. Colonoscopic diagnosis and management of rectal bleeding.  Surg Clin N Am. 1982;  62 (5) 897-903
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 30 Irvine E J, O'Connor J, Frost R A. et al . Prospective comparison of double contrast barium enema plus flexible sigmoidoscopy v colonoscopy in rectal bleeding: barium enema v colonoscopy in rectal bleeding.  Gut. 1988;  29 (9) 1188-1193
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 31 Mulcahy H E, Patel R S, Mokhashi M S. et al . Low yield of significant pathology when colonoscopy is performed for isolated abdominal pain: a multicenter database analysis of 15 550 patients.  Gastrointest Endosc. 2000;  51 (4 part 2) AB135
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 32 Berkowitz I, Kaplan M. Indications for colonoscopy. An analysis based on indications and diagnostic yield (see comments).  S Afr Med J. 1993;  83 (4) 245-248
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 33 Fockens P, Tytgat G N. Role of endoscopy in the follow-up of inflammatory bowel disease.  Endoscopy. 1992;  24 (6) 582-584
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 34 Winawer S J, Zauber A G, O'Brien M J. et al . The National Polyp Study. Design, methods, and characteristics of patients with newly diagnosed polyps. The National Polyp Study Workgroup.  Cancer. 1992;  70 1236-1245
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 35 Jorgensen O D. A randomized surveillance study of patients with pedunculated and small sessile tubular and tubulovillous adenomas. The funen adenoma follow-up study.  Scand J Gastroenterol. 1995;  30 686-692
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 36 Rex D K. Surveillance colonoscopy after resection of colorectal polyps and cancer.  ASGE Clinical Update. 1998;  6 (2) 1-4
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 37 Ibach M B, Grier J F, Goldman D E. et al . Diagnostic considerations in evaluation of patients presenting with melena and nondiagnostic esophagogastro-duodenoscopy.  Dig Dis Sci. 1995;  40 (7) 1459-1462
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 38 Neugut A I, Garbowski G C, Waye J D. et al . Diagnostic yield of colorectal neoplasie with colonoscopy for abdominal pain, change in bowel habits, and rectal bleeding.  Am J Gastroenterol. 1993;  88 1179-1183
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 39 Helfand M, Marton K I, Zimmer-Gembeck M J. et al . History of visible rectal bleeding in a primary care population.  JAMA. 1997;  277 44-48
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 40 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) . .  Endoscopy. 1999;  31 571-696
    Thieme ConnectPubMed

J.-J. Gonvers, M.D.

Division of Gastroenterology · Policlinique Médicale Universitaire

Rue César-Roux 19 · 1005 Lausanne · Switzerland

Fax: + 41 21 345 23 90

Email: Jean-Jacques.Gonvers@inst.hospvd.ch