Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Feb 16;7(2):94-101.
doi: 10.4253/wjge.v7.i2.94.

Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Affiliations
Review

Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Antonio Z Gimeno-García et al. World J Gastrointest Endosc. .

Abstract

Technical and quality improvements in colonoscopy along with the widespread implementation of population screening programs and the development of open-access units have resulted in an exponential increase in colonoscopy demands, forcing endoscopy units to bear an excessive burden of work. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy appropriateness guideline and the European panel appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guideline have appeared as potential solutions to tackle this problem and to increase detection rates of relevant lesions. Inappropriate indications based on either guideline are as high as 30%. Strategies based on these clinical criteria or other systems may be used to reduce inappropriate indications, thus decreasing waiting lists for outpatient colonoscopy, saving costs, prioritizing colonoscopy referrals and subsequently decreasing interval times from diagnosis to treatment. Despite the potential role of appropriateness guidelines, they have not been widely adopted partly due to fear of missing significant lesions detected in inappropriate indications. We review the main appropriateness and prioritising systems, their usefulness for detecting relevant lesions, as well as interventions based on those systems and cost-effectiveness.

Keywords: Colonoscopy appropriateness; Colonoscopy prioritisation; European panel appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; Open access endoscopy unit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Froehlich F, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V, Burnand B, Vader JP, Gonvers JJ. Current sedation and monitoring practice for colonoscopy: an International Observational Study (EPAGE) Endoscopy. 2006;38:461–469. - PubMed
    1. Misra T, Lalor E, Fedorak RN. Endoscopic perforation rates at a Canadian university teaching hospital. Can J Gastroenterol. 2004;18:221–226. - PubMed
    1. Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ, Lieberman DA. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;67:489–496. - PubMed
    1. Heuss LT, Froehlich F, Beglinger C. Changing patterns of sedation and monitoring practice during endoscopy: results of a nationwide survey in Switzerland. Endoscopy. 2005;37:161–166. - PubMed
    1. Recommendations on cancer screening in the European union. Advisory Committee on Cancer Prevention. Eur J Cancer. 2000;36:1473–1478. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources