The DOI matches its OpenAlex record.
Impact of Bowel Preparation on Efficiency and Cost of Colonoscopy
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The impact of bowel preparation on the cost and efficiency of colonoscopy is uncertain. The aim of this study was to measure the impact of bowel preparation on total direct cost as well as procedure time and volume. METHODS: For 200 consecutive outpatient colonoscopies in persons with intact colons both at a private university hospital and at a public university hospital, we recorded the time spent suctioning fluid and feces from the colon and the time spent washing the colon to clean the mucosa. We prospectively asked colonoscopists to designate examinations that should be repeated at an interval sooner than would otherwise be recommended because of imperfect preparation. The data were used to perform a cost analysis of the economic effect of bowel preparation on direct costs of colonoscopy. RESULTS: Suctioning fluid and washing occupied 6% and 1.5% of total examination time (including insertion and withdrawal) at the public hospital and 9% and 1.3% at the private hospital. Patients at the public hospital were more likely to have an aborted examination (6.5% vs 1%, p = 0.004) and to be brought back earlier than suggested or required by current practice standards because of imperfect bowel preparation (20% vs 12.5%, p = 0.04). Cost analysis indicated that to complete the initial examinations and the first round of surveillance, imperfect bowel preparation resulted in a 12% increase in costs at the university hospital and a 22% increase at the public hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The increase in colonoscopy costs associated with imperfect preparation is substantial, and seems likely to vary among practices. Aborted examinations and surveillance examinations performed earlier than recommended because of imperfect preparation are appropriate targets for continuous quality improvement programs. More reliable bowel preparations, or measures to improve patient compliance with bowel preparation, could significantly reduce the costs of colonoscopy in clinical practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Quality indicators for colonoscopy
Rex, D. K., Schoenfeld, P. S., Cohen, J., Pike, I. M., Adler, D. G., Fennerty, M. B., Lieb, J. G., Park, W. G., Rizk, M. K., Sawhney, M. S., et al. (2015) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058 · Cited by 1,764
Self-citationLebwohl, B., Kastrinos, F., Glick, M., Rosenbaum, A. J., Wang, T., & Neugut, A. I. (2011) · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.01.051 · Cited by 466
Systematic review: oral bowel preparation for colonoscopy
BELSEY, J., EPSTEIN, O., & HERESBACH, D. (2007) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2006.03212.x · Cited by 259
Optimizing the quality of colorectal cancer screening worldwide
Kaminski, M. F., Robertson, D. J., Senore, C., & Rex, D. K. (2020) · Gastroenterology · doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.026 · Cited by 171
Self-citationBessissow, T., Van Keerberghen, C.-A., Van Oudenhove, L., Ferrante, M., Vermeire, S., Rutgeerts, P., & Van Assche, G. (2013) · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · doi:10.1016/j.crohns.2013.04.011 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Rex, D. K., Imperiale, T. F., Latinovich, D., & Bratcher, L.
- Venue
- The American Journal of Gastroenterology
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Published
- 2002-07-01
- Volume
- 97
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1696-1700
- ISSN
- 0002-9270 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4249721846
- Cited by
- 637
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of Bowel Preparation on Efficiency and Cost of Colonoscopy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04183-7
- The paper
- Rex, D. K., Imperiale, T. F., Latinovich, D., & Bratcher, L. (2002). Impact of Bowel Preparation on Efficiency and Cost of Colonoscopy. The American Journal of Gastroenterology. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0002-9270(02)04183-7
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.