MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1097/mib.0000000000001140

Медицинская библиотека · Inflammatory bowel diseases · 2017

Comparative Acceptability and Perceived Clinical Utility of Monitoring Tools: A Nationwide Survey of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Buisson Anthony, Gonzalez Florent, Poullenot Florian, Nancey Stéphane, Sollellis Elisa, Fumery Mathurin, Pariente Benjamin, Flamant Mathurin, Trang-Poisson Caroline, Bonnaud Guillaume, Mathieu Stéphane, Thevenin Alain, Duruy Marc, Filippi Jérôme, Lʼhopital François, Luneau Fabrice, Michalet Véronique, Genès Julien, Achim Anca, Cruzille Emmanuelle, Bommelaer Gilles, Laharie David, Peyrin-Biroulet Laurent, Pereira Bruno, Nachury Maria, Bouguen Guillaume, ACCEPT study group

Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Objective control of intestinal inflammation during inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is becoming the main driver for medical treatment. However, the monitoring tools-related burden remains poorly investigated. We aimed to evaluate their comparative acceptability and utility according to patients with IBD.

METHODS

After a preliminary phase, the final questionnaire encompassing self-administered and physician questionnaires was prospectively and consecutively submitted to 916 patients with IBD from 20 public and private centers. Acceptability and utility visual analog scales (VAS) were expressed as median with interquartile range.

RESULTS

Regarding the group of patients with Crohn's disease (n = 618), venipuncture (VAS = 9.3 [8.8-9.7]) and ultrasonography (VAS = 9.3 [8.7-9.7]) were the most acceptable tools (P < 0.0001, for each comparison), whereas rectosigmoidoscopy was the least acceptable tool (VAS = 4.4 [1.2-7.3]) (P < 0.0001, for each comparison). Wireless capsule endoscopy (VAS = 8.5 [5.2-9.3]), magnetic resonance enterocolonography (VAS = 8.0 [5.0-9.2]), and stools collection (VAS = 7.7 [4.6-9.3]) were more acceptable than colonoscopy (VAS = 6.7 [4.3-8.9]) (P < 0.0001, for each comparison). The acceptability was assessed in 298 patients with ulcerative colitis for venipuncture (VAS = 9.4 [8.8-9.7]), stools collection (VAS = 8.1 [5.7-9.4]), colonoscopy (VAS = 7.5 [4.7-9.2]), and rectosigmoidoscopy (VAS = 6.7 [2.8-9.1]); (P < 0.001 for each comparison). All monitoring tools were considered as highly useful by patients with IBD. Decreased acceptability was related to embarrassment for the collection/transport of stools (60.7%), bowel cleansing (76.3%) for colonoscopy, abdominal discomfort (51.3%) and rectal enema (36.6%) for rectosigmoidoscopy, bowel distension (48.3%) for magnetic resonance enterocolonography, and potential capsule retention (21.4%) for wireless capsule endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the IBD monitoring tools, endoscopy demonstrated the lowest acceptability supporting the development of alternative modalities. Patients' information and examination conditions should be improved to ensure proper monitoring adherence.

Для цитирования: Buisson Anthony, Gonzalez Florent, Poullenot Florian, Nancey Stéphane, Sollellis Elisa, Fumery Mathurin, Pariente Benjamin, Flamant Mathurin, Trang-Poisson Caroline, Bonnaud Guillaume, Mathieu Stéphane, Thevenin Alain, Duruy Marc, Filippi Jérôme, Lʼhopital François, Luneau Fabrice, Michalet Véronique, Genès Julien, Achim Anca, Cruzille Emmanuelle, Bommelaer Gilles, Laharie David, Peyrin-Biroulet Laurent, Pereira Bruno, Nachury Maria, Bouguen Guillaume, ACCEPT study group. Comparative Acceptability and Perceived Clinical Utility of Monitoring Tools: A Nationwide Survey of Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease.. Inflammatory bowel diseases. 2017. DOI: 10.1097/mib.0000000000001140.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.