Publications by authors named "Sigrun Losada Eskeland"
Article Synopsis
- Different countries have different rules for how positive results are determined in poop tests for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.
- In a study with Norwegian people aged 50-74, they looked at the number of colonoscopies (a procedure to check the colon) at various poop test thresholds.
- They found that higher thresholds mean fewer colonoscopies but also less chance of finding serious issues like cancer, and the risk of problems during the colonoscopy increases with higher thresholds.
Objectives: To assess detection rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced adenomas in asymptomatic CRC screening participants and bowel symptoms in association with CRC and advanced adenoma.
Design: Cross-sectional study.
Setting: Two screening centres.
Objective: Investigate whether gastroenterologists rate the quality of referral letters higher if electronic dynamic checklist items are added to a standard free-text referral letter. Assess how this affects the gastroenterologists' assessment of the patient's need for healthcare and the agreement between their assessments.
Design: Randomized vignette study.
Objectives: We evaluated whether interactive, electronic, dynamic, diagnose-specific checklists improve the quality of referral letters in gastroenterology and assessed the general practitioners' (GPs') acceptance of the checklists.
Design: Randomised cross-over vignette trial.
Setting: Primary care in Norway.
Objective: To create and validate an objective and reliable score to assess referral quality in gastroenterology.
Design: An observational multicentre study.
Setting And Participants: 25 gastroenterologists participated in selecting variables for a Thirty Point Score (TPS) for quality assessment of referrals to gastroenterology specialist healthcare for 9 common indications.
Objective: To use information from the referral letters to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies in a primary open-access referral center, according to the criteria from the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II, and to compare with the first EPAGE guidelines. Second, to evaluate how the appropriateness and other patient- or doctor-related factors affected the diagnostic yield (DY).
Material And Methods: A set of variables; symptoms, referring physician and final diagnosis, for 323 referrals accepted for colonoscopy were recorded prospectively and later on assessed using the EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria, respectively.