| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
- Juul, FE, et al.
(författare)
-
Rates of repeated colonoscopies to clean the colon from low-risk and high-risk adenomas: results from the EPoS trials
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Gut. - : BMJ. - 1468-3288 .- 0017-5749. ; 72:5, s. 951-957
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- High-quality colonoscopy (adequate bowel preparation, whole-colon visualisation and removal of all neoplastic polyps) is a prerequisite to start polyp surveillance, and is ideally achieved in one colonoscopy. In a large multinational polyp surveillance trial, we aimed to investigate clinical practice variation in number of colonoscopies needed to enrol patients with low-risk and high-risk adenomas in polyp surveillance.DesignWe retrieved data of all patients with low-risk adenomas (one or two tubular adenomas <10 mm with low-grade dysplasia) and high-risk adenomas (3–10 adenomas, ≥1 adenoma ≥10 mm, high-grade dysplasia or villous components) in the European Polyp Surveillance trials fulfilling certain logistic and methodologic criteria. We analysed variations in number of colonoscopies needed to achieve high-quality colonoscopy and enter polyp surveillance by endoscopy centre, and by endoscopists who enrolled ≥30 patients.ResultsThe study comprised 15 581 patients from 38 endoscopy centres in five European countries; 6794 patients had low-risk and 8787 had high-risk adenomas. 961 patients (6.2%, 95% CI 5.8% to 6.6%) underwent two or more colonoscopies before surveillance began; 101 (1.5%, 95% CI 1.2% to 1.8%) in the low-risk group and 860 (9.8%, 95% CI 9.2% to 10.4%) in the high-risk group. Main reasons were poor bowel preparation (21.3%) or incomplete colonoscopy/polypectomy (14.4%) or planned second procedure (27.8%). Need of repeat colonoscopy varied between study centres ranging from 0% to 11.8% in low-risk adenoma patients and from 0% to 63.9% in high-risk adenoma patients. On the second colonoscopy, the two most common reasons for a repeat (third) colonoscopy were piecemeal resection (26.5%) and unspecified reason (23.9%).ConclusionThere is considerable practice variation in the number of colonoscopies performed to achieve complete polyp removal, indicating need for targeted quality improvement to reduce patient burden.Trial registration numberNCT02319928.
|
|
| 6. |
- Kaminski, M. F., et al.
(författare)
-
The NordICC Study : Rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 0013-726X .- 1438-8812. ; 44:7, s. 695-702
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background and study aim: While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial. Study design: Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. Power analysis: We hypothesize a 50% CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50% compliance, yielding a 25% mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90% power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2: 1 randomization, 45600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up. Conclusions: The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
- Adami, HO, et al.
(författare)
-
Are rapidly growing cancers more lethal?
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990). - : Elsevier BV. - 1879-0852 .- 0959-8049. ; 72, s. 210-214
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
|
|
| 19. |
- Gjøstein, DK, et al.
(författare)
-
Incentives and participation in a medical survey
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Tidsskrift for den Norske laegeforening : tidsskrift for praktisk medicin, ny raekke. - : Norwegian Medical Association. - 0807-7096. ; 136:12-13, s. 1082-7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
| 21. |
|
|
| 22. |
|
|
| 23. |
|
|
| 24. |
- Holme, O, et al.
(författare)
-
Revisiting surveillance schemes for cancer survivors
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology. - : Elsevier BV. - 1569-8041. ; 30:6, s. 881-883
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 25. |
|
|
| 26. |
|
|
| 27. |
|
|
| 28. |
|
|
| 29. |
|
|
| 30. |
- Juul, FE, et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality in Norway and Sweden during the COVID-19 pandemic
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian journal of public health. - : SAGE Publications. - 1651-1905 .- 1403-4948. ; 50:1, s. 38-45
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Norway and Sweden are similar countries in terms of socioeconomics and health care. Norway implemented extensive COVID-19 measures, such as school closures and lockdowns, whereas Sweden did not. Aims: To compare mortality in Norway and Sweden, two similar countries with very different mitigation measures against COVID-19. Methods: Using real-world data from national registries, we compared all-cause and COVID-19-related mortality rates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) per 100,000 person-weeks and mortality rate ratios (MRR) comparing the five preceding years (2015–2019) with the pandemic year (2020) in Norway and Sweden. Results: In Norway, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.6–15.1 per 100,000 person-weeks; mean mortality rate 14.9) and was lower in 2020 than from 2015 to 2019 (mortality rate 14.4; MRR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96–0.98). In Sweden, all-cause mortality was stable from 2015 to 2018 (mortality rate 17.0–17.8; mean mortality rate 17.1) and similar to that in 2020 (mortality rate 17.6), but lower in 2019 (mortality rate 16.2). Compared with the years 2015–2019, all-cause mortality in the pandemic year was 3% higher due to the lower rate in 2019 (MRR 1.03; 95% CI 1.02–1.04). Excess mortality was confined to people aged ⩾70 years in Sweden compared with previous years. The COVID-19-associated mortality rates per 100,000 person-weeks during the first wave of the pandemic were 0.3 in Norway and 2.9 in Sweden. Conclusions: All-cause mortality in 2020 decreased in Norway and increased in Sweden compared with previous years. The observed excess deaths in Sweden during the pandemic may, in part, be explained by mortality displacement due to the low all-cause mortality in the previous year.
|
|
| 31. |
|
|
| 32. |
|
|
| 33. |
|
|
| 34. |
|
|
| 35. |
|
|
| 36. |
|
|
| 37. |
|
|
| 38. |
|
|
| 39. |
|
|
| 40. |
|
|
| 41. |
|
|
| 42. |
- Adami, HO, et al.
(författare)
-
Time to abandon early detection cancer screening
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European journal of clinical investigation. - : Wiley. - 1365-2362 .- 0014-2972. ; 49:3, s. e13062-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 43. |
|
|
| 44. |
- Burra, P, et al.
(författare)
-
UEG position paper: Obesity and digestive health
- 2022
-
Ingår i: United European gastroenterology journal. - : Wiley. - 2050-6414 .- 2050-6406. ; 10:10, s. 1199-1201
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 45. |
|
|
| 46. |
|
|
| 47. |
|
|
| 48. |
- Kalager, M, et al.
(författare)
-
Too much mammography
- 2014
-
Ingår i: BMJ (Clinical research ed.). - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 348, s. g1403-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 49. |
- Schult, A. L., et al.
(författare)
-
Women require routine opioids to prevent painful colonoscopies: a randomised controlled trial
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology. - : Informa UK Limited. - 0036-5521 .- 1502-7708. ; 56:12, s. 1480-1489
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background Women are at high risk for painful colonoscopy. Pain, but also sedation, are barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation. In a randomised controlled trial, we compared on-demand with pre-colonoscopy opioid administration to control pain in women at CRC screening age. Methods Women, aged 55-79 years, attending colonoscopy at two Norwegian endoscopy units were randomised 1:1:1 to (1) fentanyl on-demand, (2) fentanyl prior to colonoscopy, or (3) alfentanil on-demand. The primary endpoint was procedural pain reported by the patients on a validated four-point Likert scale and further dichotomized for the study into painful (moderate or severe pain) and non-painful (slight or no pain) colonoscopy. Secondary endpoints were: willingness to repeat colonoscopy, adverse events, cecal intubation time and rate, and post-procedure recovery time. Results Between June 2017 and May 2020, 183 patients were included in intention-to-treat analyses in the fentanyl on-demand group, 177 in the fentanyl prior to colonoscopy group, and 179 in the alfentanil on-demand group. Fewer women receiving fentanyl prior to colonoscopy reported a painful colonoscopy compared to those who were given fentanyl on-demand (25.2% vs. 44.1%, p < .001). There was no difference in the proportion of painful colonoscopies between fentanyl on-demand and alfentanil on-demand (44.1% vs. 39.5%, p = .40). No differences were observed for adverse events or any of the other secondary endpoints between the three groups. Conclusions Fentanyl prior to colonoscopy provided better pain control than fentanyl or alfentanil on-demand. Fentanyl before colonoscopy should be recommended to all women at screening age.
|
|
| 50. |
|
|
