ライフサイエンスコーパス: colonoscopy

1 follow-up time, 8.1 years from the baseline colonoscopy).

2 ry screening colonoscopy, 22% for diagnostic colonoscopy).

3 lthy middle-aged volunteers before screening colonoscopy.

4 /2017 and no documented follow-up diagnostic colonoscopy.

5 n hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy.

6 ctomy for HGD colon adenomas during baseline colonoscopy.

7 gorizing PCCRCs detected within 4 years of a colonoscopy.

8 om were HLA-A29 positive, undergoing routine colonoscopy.

9 SPs in particular) 3 years or more after the colonoscopy.

10 on of colorectal neoplasias during real-time colonoscopy.

11 ed medical intervention within 15 days after colonoscopy.

12 val and 17.2% after HRA removal at screening colonoscopy.

13 , and clinical indications were collected at colonoscopy.

14 nterval after a well-documented prior normal colonoscopy.

15 ysical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy.

16 ), assist in deciding who would benefit from colonoscopy.

17 ystem could optimize the use of surveillance colonoscopy.

18 e up-to-date with CRC screening, mostly with colonoscopy.

19 views or hospital visits 7 and 30 days after colonoscopy.

20 ntion within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy.

21 h- and low-quality single negative screening colonoscopy.

22 italization, 33% had upper endoscopy and 64% colonoscopy.

23 eft-sided diverticulitis underwent follow-up colonoscopy.

24 ms rose significantly at days 7-10 after the colonoscopy.

25 ded diagnosis and artificial intelligence in colonoscopy.

26 correlation between all three: FCP, MRE, and colonoscopy.

27 tumor size and time to diagnosis after index colonoscopy.

28 or attended a research seminar in 2017 on WE colonoscopy.

29 and other polyp types compared with standard colonoscopy.

30 n of lesion recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy.

31 ided brief verbal education about diagnostic colonoscopy.

32 immunological test for fecal occult blood or colonoscopy.

33 tors using validated questionnaires prior to colonoscopy.

34 ief education, 20 (37.7%) patients requested colonoscopy.

35 identify factors associated with completing colonoscopy.

36 articipants expressed interest in diagnostic colonoscopy.

37 notification of FIT results and barriers to colonoscopy.

38 colorectal polyp detection during screening colonoscopies.

39 900/QALY gained, and required 758 additional colonoscopies.

40 1.6%) tested positive; 323 (87.5%) underwent colonoscopies.

41 Bowel Preparation for Hospitalized Patients Colonoscopies.

42 evidence of recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy (10/192, 5.2%) than controls (37/176, 21.0%)

43 olyps found to have recurred at surveillance colonoscopy (17% and 17%, respectively).

44 CRC, only 1143 would have been referred for colonoscopy (21.0% reduction in demand): 286 of 296 (96.

45 d in the analysis (78% for primary screening colonoscopy, 22% for diagnostic colonoscopy).

46 Of 2865 screening colonoscopies, 282 were performed on patients with type

47 -risk persons aged 50-75 years who underwent colonoscopy, 34.6% had 1 or more adenomatous polyps, 4.7

48 confirmed CRC and AA identified at follow-up colonoscopy 4-6 weeks following discharge was assessed.

49 colorectal cancer screening or surveillance colonoscopies (50-75 years old) at 20 sites in Europe an

50 ve test results, 85.3% completed a follow-up colonoscopy: 57.8% had any adenoma, 33.6% had an advance

51 An estimated 11.0 million colonoscopies, 6.1 million upper endoscopies, 313,000 fl

52 Of 641,223 users mentioning colonoscopy, 7013 (1.1%) had a query that enabled identi

53 isk of CRC in those patients not referred to colonoscopy, a FAST Score < 2.12 allows to determine a g

54 e risks of CRC and related death by baseline colonoscopy adenoma findings.

55 ted States or Europe) of patients undergoing colonoscopy after a positive result from a fecal immunoc

56 4.6%) and more than 74% received a follow-up colonoscopy after a positive test result.

57 d various multi-level barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy after abnormal FIT, including knowledge of F

58 Whether patients should have a colonoscopy after an episode of diverticulitis depends o

59 and compared survey responses by interest in colonoscopy after education.

60 test age 40-75 years, and 4) COL: 10-yearly colonoscopy age 50-70 years.

61 ype vs no polyp after adjustment for year of colonoscopy, age, sex, race/ethnicity, and smoking histo

62 performed on initial average risk screening colonoscopies (ages 45-75) during 2012-2015.

63 During colonoscopy, an unusual vascular pattern encompassing th

64 e followed up for 1 year and data from index colonoscopies and associated clearance procedures were a

65 rs but would require 10.7 million additional colonoscopies and cost an incremental $10.4 billion.

66 Finland who received at least 2 surveillance colonoscopies and were followed for a median time of 7.8

67 d: 360 were randomly assigned to white light colonoscopy and 381 to chromocolonoscopy.

68 raphy, 27% CT scan, 21% upper endoscopy, 13% colonoscopy and 83% a gastroenterologist visit.

69 d 1915 subjects with at least 1 surveillance colonoscopy and estimated cumulative incidence of advanc

70 Primary colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) are c

71 test results and document subsequent optical colonoscopy and histopathologic findings.

72 onally, the assessment of UC is performed by colonoscopy and histopathology.

73 opy only); sequential (invitation to primary colonoscopy and invitation for FIT for initial nonrespon

74 magnitude of CRC prevention possible through colonoscopy and lifestyle at a predefined genetic risk.

75 s 87.4%; P < .001) but no difference between colonoscopy and oral delivery (WPR, 87.4% vs 81.4%; P =

76 Colorectal cancer (CRC) can be prevented by colonoscopy and polypectomy.

77 both rural and urban patients received their colonoscopy and surgery at the same hospital, rural pati

78 as suspected following histology obtained at colonoscopy and this was confirmed on antibody testing.

79 Bowel preparation was poor in 19% of index colonoscopies, and only 36% of complete colonoscopies ha

80 epends on the patient's history, most recent colonoscopy, and disease severity and course.

81 a biometric strategy that incorporates FCP, colonoscopy, and MRE together.

82 decreases >=2 g/dL, hemodynamic instability, colonoscopy, angiography, or surgery) within 30 days of

83 , magnetic resonance enterography (MRE), and colonoscopy are complementary biometric tests that are u

84 associated interval colorectal cancers after colonoscopy are of concern.

85 Upper GIS endoscopy and colonoscopy are the recommended screening methods in the

86 or healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy, are carcinogenic in murine models of CRC.

87 Colonoscopy as a screening and diagnostic tool is genera

88 Given the widespread use of colonoscopy as a screening modality and the rise of anes

89 Offering a combination of FIT and colonoscopy as a sequential or active choice strategy in

90 on their miRNA profiles, using findings from colonoscopy as the reference standard.

91 ing undergone CRC screening and preferring a colonoscopy as the screening modality (78.4%).

92 ), and 675 patients underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months after the procedure.

93 d States general or similar), interventions (colonoscopy, autopsy), comparisons (world regions, alter

94 al Disease and Endoscopy Registry (GIDER), a colonoscopy-based longitudinal cohort at the Massachuset

95 In a colonoscopy-based longitudinal cohort study, we show tha

96 provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategi

97 nd 208 SSL) and controls (3804) in the large colonoscopy-based, case-control study, the Tennessee Col

98 iagnosed between 6 and 36 months after index colonoscopy) benchmark would be achievable.

99 orectal cancer (CRC) who underwent screening colonoscopy between 01/01/2012 and 14/12/2016 at a terti

100 65 patients at our facility underwent screen colonoscopy between September 1998 and August 2007.

101 y, biofilm-positive communities from healthy colonoscopy biopsies induced colon inflammation and tumo

102 his study primarily highlights that standard colonoscopy bowel preparation is often inadequate in pat

103 commend a 10-year interval between screening colonoscopies, but evidence is limited.

104 The patients then underwent colonoscopy by an experienced endoscopist with centraliz

105 , angiography, or surgery) within 30 days of colonoscopy (called delayed PPB) were collected during t

106 In a population-based study, we found that a colonoscopy can drastically reduce the absolute risk of

107 fty-three patients (79.1%) confirmed lack of colonoscopy, citing provider-related (19, 35.8%), patien

108 from the FIT cohort and 1.5% polyps from the colonoscopy cohort (P = .044); however, this difference

109 n the FIT cohort and 0.4% of patients in the colonoscopy cohort) (P = .25).

110 ng, surveillance, or evaluation of symptoms (colonoscopy cohort, n = 30,123).

111 red to cecal intubation in a large screening colonoscopy cohort.

112 These include: general blood test, colonoscopy, colon biopsy, medical imaging and stool tes

113 After negative colonoscopy, colorectal cancer incidence was 0.30% (95%

114 duced polyp recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy, compared with no additional treatment.

115 d telephone surveys with patients to confirm colonoscopy completion and elicit data on notification o

116 Diagnostic colonoscopy completion and reasons for non-completion we

117 goal of this study was to explore diagnostic colonoscopy completion in adults with abnormal screening

118 Improving colonoscopy completion rates after abnormal results from

119 edictors were not associated with diagnostic colonoscopy completion.

120 nchworm Double balloon (SPID) mini-robot for colonoscopy consisting of two balloons connected by a 3

121 Compared to the colonoscopy control population, MC was associated with s

122 of healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopies (controls) and patients with Crohn's disea

123 These 758 colonoscopies could instead be used to screen 231 curren

124 ntified those queries in which the timing of colonoscopy could be estimated.

125 edictor of the likelihood of developing post-colonoscopy CRC.

126 are two primary factors contributing to post-colonoscopy CRC.

127 Of those referred, 1447 had colonoscopy data as well as the f-Hb result (group A): 2

128 ion on diabetes type, lifestyle factors, and colonoscopy data.

129 from 5 days before through 30 days after the colonoscopy date.

130 a query that enabled identification of their colonoscopy date.

131 with PIPs receive more frequent surveillance colonoscopies, despite limited evidence of this increase

132 Esophagogastroduodenoscopy and colonoscopy did not reveal any abnormalities.

133 Only after high-quality colonoscopy did the SIR and SMR for 10.1 to 17.4 years o

134 (CS) or monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for colonoscopy do not exist.

135 study of all consecutive patients undergoing colonoscopy during pre-liver transplantation screening b

136 rs in the United States containing the word "colonoscopy" during a 12-month period and identified tho

137 US veterans 18 to 49 years old who underwent colonoscopy examinations from 1999 through 2014.

138 There is now evidence that baseline colonoscopy findings are strongly associated with the ri

139 Baseline screening colonoscopy findings associate with advanced neoplasia w

140 cancer [CRC]) and assessed whether baseline colonoscopy findings were associated with long-term outc

141 Of participants who underwent colonoscopy, five (1.5%) experienced major colonoscopy-r

142 ifferences among groups in screening uptake, colonoscopy follow-up of abnormal test results, and test

143 Optical colonoscopy follow-up rates for positive results of mt-s

144 forts will evaluate interventions to improve colonoscopy follow-up.

145 FMT (n = 38) or autologous FMT (n = 35) via colonoscopy followed by 2 enemas over 7 days.

146 mine patient-reported barriers to diagnostic colonoscopy following abnormal FIT in an academic health

147 International guidelines recommend colonoscopy following hospitalisation for acute divertic

148 0.2 years old; 337 men) undergoing screening colonoscopies for CRC, post-polypectomy surveillance, or

149 test (FIT cohort, n = 34,221) or undergoing colonoscopies for screening, surveillance, or evaluation

150 nomas, low-risk adenomas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonosco

151 pport guidelines that recommend surveillance colonoscopy for individuals with SPs.

152 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or evaluation o

153 nts at 21 medical centers underwent baseline colonoscopies from 2004 through 2010; findings were cate

154 (50-75 years old) who underwent a screening colonoscopy from 1994 through 1997 at 13 medical centers

155 te Northern California members who underwent colonoscopy from 2006 through 2016.

156 here were 146 individuals among all baseline colonoscopy groups found to have at least 1 incident adv

157 ndex colonoscopies, and only 36% of complete colonoscopies had adequate photodocumentation of complet

158 on 90 single-nucleotide polymorphisms), and colonoscopy history.

159 rom healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy; homogenates of biofilm-negative colon biops

160 be a predictor of poor bowel preparation for colonoscopy; however, the optimal bowel preparation regi

161 reased until 3 years or more after the first colonoscopy (HR for small proximal SPs 2.6; 95% CI, 1.7-

162 We investigated whether tumor seeding during colonoscopy (iatrogenic implantation of tumor cells in d

163 ce (GI-Genius, Medtronic) trained to process colonoscopy images and superimpose them, in real time, o

164 section and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy in a per polyp analysis.

165 c review of evidence related to surveillance colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease to look at the

166 pic of improving the quality of surveillance colonoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease.

167 Follow-up colonoscopy in nine patients (22%) allowed them to be re

168 copy indication, to evaluate the efficacy of colonoscopy in preventing colorectal cancer (CRC) incide

169 d clinical events potentially related to the colonoscopy in the 30 days after the procedure were regi

170 exible sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years, or colonoscopy in the past 10 years.

171 Adherence to a healthy lifestyle and colonoscopy in the preceding 10 years were associated wi

172 modality and the rise of anesthesia-assisted colonoscopy in the United States in recent years, this s

173 ucity of evidence supporting the efficacy of colonoscopy in this context, particularly for patients w

174 ratio of standard performance of a screening colonoscopy in this population appears questionable, alt

175 e risk-benefit ratio of performing screening colonoscopy in this population.

176 ctal cancer (PCCRC) is CRC diagnosed after a colonoscopy in which no cancer was found.

177 High-quality colonoscopy included a complete examination, with adequa

178 The other cohort, screened by optical colonoscopy, included both patients free of adenomas and

179 data, which do not include information about colonoscopy indication, to evaluate the efficacy of colo

180 Screening colonoscopy initiation at age 45 years instead of 50 yea

181 Most post-colonoscopy interval colorectal cancers are proximal; se

182 A shorter surveillance colonoscopy interval increases the detection of missed s

183 le colorectal adenomas during a surveillance colonoscopy interval starting about 3 y after randomizat

184 atment period was extended into a subsequent colonoscopy interval, but eventually stopped prematurely

185 with CF attending a single centre, requiring colonoscopy investigation were selected.

186 Colonoscopy is a routine procedure in diagnosis and trea

187 The design of a smart robot for colonoscopy is challenging because of the limited availa

188 ence of colonic adenoma at time of follow-up colonoscopy is common in patients who undergo polypectom

189 Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with colonoscopy is commonly used in patients who are candida

190 Colonoscopy is commonly used to screen for colorectal ca

191 Although colonoscopy is considered the most efficacious test, FIT

192 Screening colonoscopy is crucial in reducing the mortality of colo

193 d CRC-screening with annual FIT or 10-yearly colonoscopy is most effective.

194 w-up of abnormal FIT results with diagnostic colonoscopy is underutilized.

195 White light colonoscopy is widely used to detect colorectal polyps,

196 re few cases of gas gangrene occurring after colonoscopy, making it one of the rarer complications of

197 dergone CRC resection should be evaluated by colonoscopy more closely during this time period.

198 We conducted a retrospective study of all colonoscopies (n = 12,085) performed at Howard Universit

199 AA patients and was diagnosed in 2.5% of all colonoscopies (n = 252/10,027), which is higher than Cau

200 re compared to patients undergoing screening colonoscopy (n = 306) and to the United States populatio

201 f LS (85%) and identical recommendations for colonoscopy, NGT reported significantly lower use of col

202 econdary outcomes were adenomas detected per colonoscopy, non-neoplastic resection rate, and withdraw

203 ormation regarding a subsequent surveillance colonoscopy occurring before completion of follow-up on

204 dence of CRCs identified during surveillance colonoscopies of patients who have already undergone sur

205 strategies: control (invitation to screening colonoscopy only); sequential (invitation to primary col

206 large adenoma) removed after screening with colonoscopy or fecal immunochemical testing (FIT).

207 ; or choice (invitation offering a choice of colonoscopy or FIT).

208 ving fecal samples from subjects with normal colonoscopy or from CRC patients were monitored for 7 or

209 ned to a group that received FMT, applied by colonoscopy or nasojejunal tube, after 4-10 days of vanc

210 cancers when compared to controls undergoing colonoscopy or the US SEER population.

211 BD and 415 NIC based on a thorough review of colonoscopy, pathology and clinical reports.

212 is is a cause of rapid deterioration in post-colonoscopy patients and has been misdiagnosed as coloni

213 a promising solution to reduce variation in colonoscopy performance.

214 omas, and after negative colonoscopy for all colonoscopies performed by colonoscopists with low vs hi

215 rban patients, rural patients more often had colonoscopies performed by general surgeons (and less of

216 lyp surveillance now accounts for 25% of all colonoscopies performed.

217 ed; harms as additional complications due to colonoscopy (physical harm) and positive test results (p

218 The majority of queries about colonoscopy preceded the procedure, and concerned diet.

219 lood testing and were more likely to undergo colonoscopy; prevalence ratios were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.42-0

220 ower was based was time taken to perform the colonoscopy procedure, defined as from the time when the

221 the clinic; 70 adults with CF had an initial colonoscopy procedure.

222 ng for 40 colorectal adenoma patients and 39 colonoscopy-proven normal controls in order to find pote

223 The role of the colonoscopy provider has important implications for refe

224 as assessed by colon-length measurements and colonoscopy (PV < 0.0001).

225 ntilation [in the chromocolonoscopy group]), colonoscopy quality measures, comfort scores, and sedati

226 oximately one week after queries relating to colonoscopy, raising the possibility that such symptoms

227 The colonoscopy rates for participants with positive FITs we

228 t colonoscopy, five (1.5%) experienced major colonoscopy-related complications, including bowel perfo

229 ade dysplasia (HGD) colon polyps at baseline colonoscopy remains unclear.

230 values for centers with sufficient follow-up colonoscopy resources.

231 esults support adults with CF considered for colonoscopy screening at 40 years of age, or prior to th

232 performed within the framework of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program between January 2019 and M

233 Findings were validated in the Austrian colonoscopy screening program.

234 tions in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured.

235 in determining colorectal cancer risk after colonoscopy screening.

236 rom healthy individuals undergoing screening colonoscopy served as controls.

237 Recommendation of surveillance colonoscopy should be based on risk of colorectal cancer

238 l, we found that including CADe in real-time colonoscopy significantly increases ADR and adenomas det

239 We identified 74 relevant colonoscopy studies.

240 quired hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention w

241 Colonoscopy surveillance after adenoma removal is an inc

242 The evidence that colonoscopy surveillance reduces colorectal cancer (CRC)

243 k of CRC and related death, supporting early colonoscopy surveillance.

244 opy, NGT reported significantly lower use of colonoscopy than carriers (47% vs. 73%; p = 0.003).

245 rate for PCCRCs detected within 3 years of a colonoscopy that did not detect CRC.

246 For 50-year-old men and women without a colonoscopy, the absolute risk of CRC varied according t

247 For 50-year-old men and women with a colonoscopy, the absolute risk of developing CRC was muc

248 After colonoscopy, there was a significantly increased risk fo

249 ectal neoplasias are missed during screening colonoscopies; these can develop into colorectal cancer

250 um and transverse colon; she had undergone a colonoscopy three years prior to this exam which was str

251 erans who were free of CRC at their baseline colonoscopy through 3 years of follow-up were identified

252 a detection rates (ADR) in initial screening colonoscopies to further investigate the role of diabete

253 ents who underwent polypectomy during screen colonoscopy to assess recurrent colonic adenoma risk fac

254 e estimated the risk of tumor seeding during colonoscopy to be 0.3%-0.6%.

255 = 0.002; OR 3.08(1.52-6.24 95% CI)] at index colonoscopy to be significantly associated with recurren

256 international cohorts of patients undergoing colonoscopy to determine what proportion of patients are

257 creening and prevention, with optimal use of colonoscopy to effectively decrease CRC incidence and mo

258 ples were received from patients referred to colonoscopy units.

259 .64, p < 0.01) are significant predictors of colonoscopy use across all family members controlling fo

260 ing provides a method to appropriately focus colonoscopy use in families with Lynch syndrome (LS).

261 the United States, no studies have assessed colonoscopy use within this elusive and high-risk subset

262 We set forth to (1) document colonoscopy use within those not undergoing genetic test

263 are, the results on the patients referred to colonoscopy validate the prediction model.

264 pothesis that tumor seeding can occur during colonoscopy via the working channel of the endoscope.

265 g or more within the 5-year period preceding colonoscopy was associated with higher odds of EOCRC (od

266 A single negative screening colonoscopy was associated with reduced CRC incidence an

267 ction rates of adenomatous polyps at initial colonoscopy was higher in modified CF bowel preparation

268 CD activity on colonoscopy was measured with the Crohn's Disease Endosc

269 A diagnostic colonoscopy was performed which revealed the presence of

270 but following a recurrence in his symptoms a colonoscopy was performed.

271 Colonoscopy was recommended after sigmoidoscopy if any p

272 Thus, completion of a diagnostic colonoscopy was relatively low in a large sample of comm

273 The most common reason for colonoscopy was screening (53%), whereas the prevalent r

274 ed that an adenoma count of >= 3 at baseline colonoscopy was strongly associated with overall recurre

275 of a large cohort of individuals examined by colonoscopy, we found that risk of incident CRC increase

276 whereas the prevalent reasons for diagnostic colonoscopies were changes in bowel habits (18%) and gas

277 A total of 173,288 Polish colonoscopies were included in the study.

278 A total 73 Colonoscopies were ordered for patients who received the

279 All tandem colonoscopies were performed by the same endoscopist.

280 Twenty-five colonoscopies were performed in 25 subjects.

281 Eighty colonoscopies were performed in patients with CD and 21

282 idence after high-quality versus low-quality colonoscopy were 0.55 (CI, 0.35 to 0.86) for 0 to 5 year

283 FCP levels, MRE, and colonoscopy were assessed in parallel on all 156 patient

284 Hospitalized patients undergoing inpatient colonoscopy were assigned randomly to receive a high, me

285 HGD colon polyps who had undergone follow-up colonoscopy were included for analysis.

286 and duodenal biopsies findings and a normal colonoscopy were performed.

287 opist-blinded: patients undergoing screening colonoscopy were randomized before treatment with the se

288 Adenomas detected per colonoscopy were significantly higher in the CADe group

289 , 56 years; 37.8% male) undergoing screening colonoscopies with adequate bowel cleansing and cecum in

290 We performed surveillance colonoscopies with standardized photo documentation and

291 1:1) to groups who underwent high-definition colonoscopies with the CADe system or without (controls)

292 perceptions and discuss recommendations for colonoscopy with all members in families with LS.Trial R

293 t many instrumental examination, including a colonoscopy with bowel and intestinal biopsies that pose

294 enced endoscopists performed same-day tandem colonoscopies, with the order being randomized 1:1 to NB

295 and women aged 40 to 80 years scheduled for colonoscopy, with no recent use of aspirin or other drug

296 tion of CRC diagnosed more than 1 year after colonoscopy, with polyp type vs no polyp after adjustmen

297 ation after baseline, adjusting for multiple colonoscopies within individuals.

298 T result, 1066 (52.8%) completed a follow-up colonoscopy within 12 months.

299 ntly increases ADR and adenomas detected per colonoscopy without increasing withdrawal time.

300 lity showed lower cure rates with enema than colonoscopy (WPR, 66.3% vs 87.4%; P < .001) but no diffe

301 Only high-quality colonoscopy yielded profound and stable reductions in CR