Adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance in opportunistic colorectal cancer screening: The necessity of organized surveillance
PLoS ONE, ISSN: 1932-6203, Vol: 8, Issue: 12, Page: e82676
2013
- 20Citations
- 31Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations20
- Citation Indexes19
- 19
- CrossRef9
- Policy Citations1
- Policy Citation1
- Captures31
- Readers31
- 31
Article Description
Background: Limited evidence exists on the utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs. We assessed adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance in opportunistic CRC screening in Germany. Methods: A follow-up study of screening colonoscopy participants in 2007-2009 in Saarland, Germany, was conducted using health insurance claims data. Utilization of additional colonoscopies through to 2011 was ascertained. Adherence to surveillance intervals of 3, 6, 12 and 36 months, defined as having had colonoscopy at 2.5 to 4, 5 to 8, 10.5 to 16 and 33 to 48 months, respectively (i.e., tolerating a delay of 33% of each interval) was assessed. Potential predictors of non-adherence were investigated using logistic regression analysis. Results: A total of 20,058 screening colonoscopy participants were included in the study. Of those with recommended surveillance intervals of 3, 6, 12 and 36 months, 46.5% (95%-confidence interval [CI]: 37.3-55.7%), 38.5% (95%-CI: 29.6-47.3%), 25.4% (95%-CI: 21.2-29.6%) and 28.0% (95%-CI: 25.5-30.5%), respectively, had a subsequent colonoscopy within the specified margins. Old age, longer recommended surveillance interval, not having had polypectomy at screening and negative colonoscopy were statistically significant predictors of non-adherence. Conclusion: This study suggests frequent non-adherence to physician recommendations for surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Increased efforts to improve adherence, including introduction of more elements of an organized screening program, seem necessary to assure a high-quality CRC screening process. © 2013 Stock et al.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84891920658&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24324821; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g002; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g002; https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g001; http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g001; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g002; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g002; https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g001; https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082676&type=printable; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0082676; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g002; http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676.g001; http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082676; http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082676&type=printable
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know