Critical appraisal:Stoop EM, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Fockens P, Kuipers EJ, et al 2012 1

From Clinical Guidelines Wiki

Critical Appraisal

Article being appraised

Stoop EM, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Fockens P, Kuipers EJ, et al. Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial. Br J Cancer 2012 Sep 25;107(7):1051-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22918392.


Applicable clinical question

Key Facts

Study Design

randomised controlled trial

Study aims:

To compare precolonoscopy face to face meeting with telephone c ounselling

Number of Patients:

6600

50-75 years form the general Dutch population living near Amsterdam or Rotterdam.
Reported outcome(s):

Difference in participation in colonoscopy
Satisfaction with the consultation
Expected and perceived burden of the colonoscopy

Results of outcome(s):

Attendance at colonoscopy 24% telephone vs 25% colonoscopy p=0.018
Satisfation with consultation 98.5% telephone vs 99.8% face to face p=0.014
Telephone grouip thought that bowel prep would be more painful

Comments on results:

Face to face group more satisfied with ability to ask questions 100% vs 99.1% p=0.023

Includes an economic evaluation

no

Evidence ratings

Level of evidence

II

Risk of bias
Low risk of bias Comments: Large population randomised

Risk of bias assessment: randomised controlled trial

Was the trial double-blinded?
I am reasonably certain that the trial was double-blinded (eg identical placebo, active placebo, double-dummy, no revealing side-effects).
Was the treatment allocation schedule concealed?
Adequately concealed (e.g. central randomisation, numbered or coded bottles, drugs prepared by pharmacy).
Were all randomised participants included in the analysis?
No exclusions or survival analysis used with all subjects included (>95% follow-up for all groups).
The field below is not considered when calculating the risk of bias rating
How was the allocation schedule generated?
Adequate (e.g. random number table, computer random generator, coin tossing, card shuffling)
Size of effect
2 Reason for decision: p>0.01
Relevance of evidence
1 Additional comments: Face to face impacted on colonoscopy particiaption
Result of appraisal

Jutta's tick icon.png Included




Completed by

Prof Ian Olver AM


Jutta's tick icon.png This appraisal has been completed.


Article
Stoop EM, de Wijkerslooth TR, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Fockens P, Kuipers EJ, et al. Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial. Br J Cancer 2012 Sep 25;107(7):1051-8 Abstract available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22918392.
Assigned to
User:Ian.olver
Topic area
Guidelines:
Property "Appraisal topic" (as page type) with input value "Guidelines:" contains invalid characters or is incomplete and therefore can cause unexpected results during a query or annotation process.
Clinical question
Form
Form:Critical appraisal


Section below only relevant for Cancer Council Project Officer

Edit appraisal assignment