Status
Conditions
Treatments
About
Our study aims to improve adherence to international clinical guidelines of repeating colonoscopy within 1 year, when bowel cleansing has failed. To this end, we have designed an ambispective study in patients with inadequately prepared colonoscopy. An intervention group to which a precise written recommendation on the need to repeat the colonoscopy in less than 1 year is attached, compared with a control group to which no written recommendations are provided.
The sample size calculation is 171 patients per arm. In addition, we will quantify the percentage of pre-malignant and malignant lesions detected at repeat colonoscopy. We will also analyze factors that may be related to the recommendation or non-recommendation of repeat colonoscopy, as well as the association of variables related to adherence to repeat colonoscopy at an interval of less than 1 year.
Through our study, we intend to demonstrate that a written recommendation, easily applicable and generalizable, has a positive impact on adherence to clinical follow-up guidelines in patients in whom bowel cleansing has failed.
Full description
STUDY HYPOTHESIS
In patients with an inadequately prepared colonoscopy, a written recommendation on the need for repeat colonoscopy in less than 1 year improves adherence.
OBJECTIVES
Main objective
Secondary objectives
METHODOLOGY
Study population
There are 2 population groups according to the recommendations they received:
Control group: No-recommendation group.
Patients to be included in the retrospective cohort will receive a colonoscopy report that includes that the bowel cleansing was inadequate. However, the report will not include that the colonoscopy should be repeated in less than 1 year.
Intervention group: When-to-repeat group
Patients in the intervention group will receive a colonoscopy report that includes that the bowel cleansing was inadequate, and in addition the report will include that the colonoscopy should be repeated within 1 year.
Outcome measures
Sample size
Accepting an alpha risk of 0.05 and a beta risk of 0.2 in a two-sided test, 171 subjects are necessary in first group and 171 in the second to find as statistically significant a proportion difference, expected to be of 0.3 in group 1 and 0.45 in group 2. It has been anticipated a drop-out rate of 5%.
Enrollment
Sex
Ages
Volunteers
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Primary purpose
Allocation
Interventional model
Masking
465 participants in 2 patient groups
Loading...
Central trial contact
Miguel Pantaleón, PhD MD
Data sourced from clinicaltrials.gov
Clinical trials
Research sites
Resources
Legal