Rates of Minor Adverse Events and Health Resources Utilization Post-colonoscopy
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Little is known about minor adverse events following outpatient colonoscopies and the few existing studies are limited by possible recall bias and outcome misclassification. The purpose of this study is to estimate prospectively the rate of minor adverse events at 2, 14, and 30 days after outpatient colonoscopies, and assess healthcare resources utilization resulting from minor adverse events. Methods: A longitudinal cohort study with follow-ups at 2, 14, and 30 days was conducted among individuals having an outpatient colonoscopy at Montreal General Hospital. Consecutive individuals were interviewed by a research assistant prior to colonoscopy to obtain baseline characteristics (age, gender, comorbidities, use of antiplatelets/anticoagulants, prior symptoms). Endoscopy reports were consulted for the colonoscopy indication, colonoscopy findings, biopsies and polypectomies. Follow-up occurred by either phone interview or internet survey, according to the participant's choice; data collected included: minor adverse events (abdominal pain, bloating, diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting, blood in the stools, rectal or anal pain, headaches, other) and health resources utilization (emergency department, primary care doctor, gastroenterologist, nurse, pharmacist, health hotline). Minor adverse event rates were estimated at each follow-up using a Bayesian hierarchical model accounting for physician clustering. Two sets of analyses were performed. In the first, we included all adverse events reported, and in the second, we excluded complaints that were present before the colonoscopy (based on the symptoms reported at the baseline interview). Results: Of the 705 individuals approached, 421 (59.7%) were recruited. The minor adverse event rates at the two, 14 and 30 days follow-up were 25.8% (95% CI 12.5%, 43.5%), 13.9% (95% CI 5.2%, 25.9%), and 4.3 (95% CI 0.06%, 12.5%), respectively. After excluding complaints that were present before the colonoscopy, the minor adverse event rates at the 2, 14, and 30 days follow-up were 17.2% (95% CI 8.0%, 29.6%), 9.7% (95% CI 2.4%, 23.4%) and 3.1% (95% CI 0.08%,13.2%), respectively. There was little variation among physician specific rates. Overall health resources utilization for minor adverse events was low (1.8%). Conclusion: Minor adverse events post-colonoscopy are common, occur mainly in the first two weeks and result in little use of health resources.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».