Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?

  • GI Oncology (R Bresalier, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Gastroenterology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the USA, colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death among both men and women. Declining rates of colon cancer in the past decade have been attributed in part to screening and removal of precancerous polyps via colonoscopy. Recent emphasis has been placed on measures to increase the quality and effectiveness of colonoscopy. These have been divided into pre-procedure quality metrics (bowel preparation), procedural quality metrics (cecal intubation, withdrawal time, and adenoma detection rate), post-procedure metrics (surveillance interval), and other quality metrics (patient satisfaction and willingness to repeat the procedure). The purpose of this article is to review the data and controversies surrounding each of these and identify ways to optimize the performance of colonoscopy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. GLOBOCAN cancer fact sheets: colorectal cancers. http://globocan.iarc.fr/old/FactSheets/cancers/colorectal-new.asp#TOP. Accessed 10/12/2015.

  2. American Cancer Society. Colorectal cancer facts & figures 2014–2016. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):31–53. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.058. Epub 2014 Dec 2. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Saltzman JR, Cash BD, et al. Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(4):781–94. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.09.048. Epub 2015 Jan 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Lai EJ, Calderwood AH, Doros G, et al. The Boston bowel preparation scale: a valid and reliable instrument for colonoscopy-oriented research. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;69(3 Pt 2):620–5. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2008.05.057. PubMed PMID: 19136102, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2763922, Epub 2009 Jan 10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Chokshi RV, Hovis CE, Hollander T, et al. Prevalence of missed adenomas in patients with inadequate bowel preparation on screening colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(6):1197–203. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Feb 28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lieberman DA, Holub JL, Morris CD, et al. Low rate of large polyps (>9 mm) within 10 years after an adequate baseline colonoscopy with no polyps. Gastroenterology. 2014;147(2):343–50. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2014.04.020. PubMed PMID: 24768680, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4281886, Epub 2014 Apr 22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Oh CH, Lee CK, Kim JW, et al. Suboptimal bowel preparation significantly impairs colonoscopic detection of non-polypoid colorectal neoplasms. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(8):2294–303. doi:10.1007/s10620-015-3628-6. Epub 2015 Mar 17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anderson JC, Butterly LF, Robinson CM, et al. Impact of fairbowel preparation quality on adenoma and serrated polyp detection: data from the New Hampshire colonoscopy registry by using a standardized preparation-quality rating. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;80(3):463–70. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.03.021. PubMed PMID: 24818550, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4134990, Epub 2014 May 10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Clark BT, Rustagi T, Laine L. What level of bowel prep quality requires early repeat colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis of the impact of preparation quality on adenoma detection rate. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(11):1714–23; quiz 1724. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2014.232. Epub 2014 Aug 19. Review. PubMed PMID: 25135006; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4423726. This meta-analysis concluded that fair quality bowel preparation did not have a significant difference in ADR from good or high quality bowel preparation and that a shortened surveillance interval due to fair quality preparation is not needed.

  11. Calderwood AH, Thompson KD, Schroy 3rd PC, et al. Good is better than excellent: bowel preparation quality and adenoma detection rates. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(3):691–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.10.032. PubMed PMID: 25708756, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4339796.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Prakash SR, Verma S, McGowan J, et al. Improving the quality of colonoscopy bowel preparation using an educational video. Can J Gastroenterol. 2013;27(12):696–700. PubMed PMID: 24340313, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3915011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Tae JW, Lee JC, Hong SJ, et al. Impact of patient education with cartoon visual aids on the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(4):804–11. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.05.026. Epub 2012 Jul 27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Baxter NN, Goldwasser MA, Paszat LF, et al. Association of colonoscopy and death from colorectal cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150(1):1–8. Epub 2008 Dec 15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Gupta M, Holub JL, Eisen G. Do indication and demographics for colonoscopy affect completion? A large national database evaluation. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;22(5):620–7. doi:10.1097/MEG.0b013e3283352cd6. PubMed PMID:20032782, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3856575.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hsu CM, Lin WP, Su MY, et al. Factors that influence cecal intubation rate during colonoscopy in deeply sedated patients. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2012;27(1):76–80. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2011.06795.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pullens HJ, Siersema PD. Quality indicators for colonoscopy: current insights and caveats. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;6(12):571–83. doi:10.4253/wjge.v6.i12.571. PubMed PMID: 25512766, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4265954, Review.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Hafner S, Zolk K, Radaelli F, et al. Water infusion versus air insufflation for colonoscopy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;5, CD009863. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009863.pub2. Review.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Luo H, Zhang L, Liu X, et al. Water exchange enhanced cecal intubation in potentially difficult colonoscopy. Unsedated patients with prior abdominal or pelvic surgery: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(5):767–73. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2012.12.007. Epub 2013 Feb 5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wu J, Hu B. The role of carbon dioxide insufflation in colonoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2012;44(2):128–36. doi:10.1055/s-0031-1291487. Epub 2012 Jan 23. Review.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Luo DJ, Hui AJ, Yan KK, et al. A randomized comparison of ultrathin and standard colonoscope in cecal intubation rate and patient tolerance. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(3):484–90. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.07.032. Epub 2011 Oct 1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bannert C, Reinhart K, Dunkler D, et al. Sedation in screening colonoscopy: impact on quality indicators and complications. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(12):1837–48. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.347. Epub 2012 Nov 13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, et al. Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology. 2015;149(4):952–7. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2015.06.044. Epub 2015 Jul 9. This study concluded that the incidence of interval colorectal cancer is lowest with a withdrawal time lasting ≥8 minutes, thus challenging the current recommendation that withdrawal time should be ≥6 minutes.

  24. Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, et al. Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):20–6. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1325803. Epub 2012 Dec 19.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Butterly L, Robinson CM, Anderson JC, et al. Serrated and adenomatous polyp detection increases with longer withdrawal time: results from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(3):417–26. doi:10.1038/ajg.2013.442. PubMed PMID: 24394752, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4082336, Epub 2014 Jan 7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Kaminski MF, Regula J, Kraszewska E, et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(19):1795–803. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0907667.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Corley DA, Jensen CD, Marks AR, et al. Adenoma detection rate and risk of colorectal cancer and death. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(14):1298–306. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1309086. PubMed PMID: 24693890; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4036494. This study determined that with every 1% increase in ADR there is a corresponding 3% decrease in the risk of interval colon cancer, strongly confirming the earlier Kaminski study that ADR and interval colorectal cancer are related. These two studies are the reason that ADR is considered such a strong quality marker for colonoscopy.

  28. Kahi CJ, Ballard D, Shah AS, et al. Impact of a quarterly report card on colonoscopy quality measures. Gastrointest Endosc. 2013;77(6):925–31. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.01.012. Epub 2013 Mar 6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Keswani RN, Yadlapati R, Gleason KM, et al. Physician report cards and implementing standards of practice are both significantly associated with improved screening colonoscopy quality. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(8):1134–9. doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.103. Epub 2015 Apr 14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Coe SG, Crook JE, Diehl NN, Wallace MB. An endoscopic quality improvement program improves detection of colorectal adenomas. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(2):219–26. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.417. quiz 227. Epub 2013 Jan 8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Robertson DJ. EQUIPping ourselves for future quality improvements in colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(2):228–30. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.421.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Abdul-Baki H, Schoen RE, Dean K, et al. Public reporting of colonoscopy quality is associated with an increase in endoscopist adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(4):676–82. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2014.12.058. PubMed PMID: 26385276, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4575767.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kahi CJ, Vemulapalli KC, Johnson CS, Rex DK. Improving measurement of the adenoma detection rate and adenoma per colonoscopy quality metric: the Indiana University experience. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;79(3):448–54. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2013.10.013. Epub 2013 Nov 15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Leffler DA, Kheraj R, Bhansali A, et al. Adenoma detection rates vary minimally with time of day and case rank: a prospective study of 2139 first screening colonoscopies. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(3):554–60. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.11.021.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Borda F, Borda A, Jiménez FJ, et al. Does endoscopist fatigue play a role in incomplete colonoscopies and detection of polypoid lesions? Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;37(1):9–16. doi: 10.1016/j.gastrohep.2013.09.001. Epub 2013 Dec 15. Spanish.

  36. Almadi MA, Sewitch M, Barkun AN, et al. Adenoma detection rates decline with increasing procedural hours in an endoscopist’s workload. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;29(6):304–8. PubMed PMID: 25996612, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4578453, Epub 2015 May 21.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Gómez V, Wallace MB. Advances in diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy. Curr Opin Gastroenterol. 2014;30(1):63–8. doi:10.1097/MOG.0000000000000026. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Subramanian V, Mannath J, Hawkey CJ, Ragunath K. High definition colonoscopy vs. standard video endoscopy for the detection of colonic polyps: a meta-analysis. Endoscopy. 2011;43(6):499–505. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1256207. Epub 2011 Feb 28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Banks MR, Haidry R, Butt MA, et al. High resolution colonoscopy in a bowel cancer screening program improves polyp detection. World J Gastroenterol. 2011;17(38):4308–13. doi:10.3748/wjg.v17.i38.4308. PubMed PMID: 22090787, PubMed Central PMCID:PMC3214706.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Gross SA, Buchner AM, Crook JE, et al. A comparison of high definition-image enhanced colonoscopy and standard white-light colonoscopy for colorectal polyp detection. Endoscopy. 2011;43(12):1045–51. doi:10.1055/s-0030-1256894. Epub 2011 Oct 4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Waldmann E, Britto-Arias M, Gessl I, et al. Endoscopists with low adenoma detection rates benefit from high-definition endoscopy. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(2):466–73. doi:10.1007/s00464-014-3688-2. Epub 2014 Jul 9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dinesen L, Chua TJ, Kaffes AJ. Meta-analysis of narrow-band imaging versus conventional colonoscopy for adenoma detection. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(3):604–11. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.10.017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gross S, Trautwein C, Behrens A, et al. Computer-based classification of smallcolorectal polyps by using narrow-band imaging with optical magnification. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;74(6):1354–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.001. Epub 2011 Oct 13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Takeuchi Y, Hanafusa M, Kanzaki H, et al. Proposal of a new 'resect and discard' strategy using magnifying narrow band imaging: pilot study of diagnostic accuracy. Dig Endosc. 2014;26 Suppl 2:90–7. doi:10.1111/den.12248.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Bond A, Sarkar S. New technologies and techniques to improve adenoma detection in colonoscopy. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7(10):969–80. PubMed PMID: 26265990, PubMed Central PMCID:PMC4530330.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Repici A, Di Stefano AF, Radicioni MM, et al. Methylene blue MMX tablets for chromoendoscopy. Safety tolerability and bioavailability in healthy volunteers. Contemp Clin Trials. 2012;33(2):260–7. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2011.11.006. Epub 2011 Nov 11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Gralnek IM, Siersema PD, Halpern Z, et al. Standard forward-viewing colonoscopy versus full-spectrum endoscopy: an international, multicentre, randomised, tandem colonoscopy trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15(3):353–60. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70020-8. PubMed PMID: 24560453, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4062184, Epub 2014 Feb 20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Leufkens AM, DeMarco DC, Rastogi A, Third Eye Retroscope Randomized Clinical Evaluation [TERRACE] Study Group, et al. Effect of a retrograde-viewing device on adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: the TERRACE study. Gastrointest Endosc. 2011;73(3):480–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2010.09.004. Epub 2010 Nov 10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dik VK, Moons LM, Siersema PD. Endoscopic innovations to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(9):2200–11. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v20.i9.2200. Review. PubMed PMID: 24605019;PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3942825.

  50. Biecker E, Floer M, Heinecke A, et al. Novel endocuff-assisted colonoscopy significantly increases the polyp detection rate: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2015;49(5):413–8. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000000166.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Rajasekhar PT, Rees CJ, Rutter MD, Quality Improvement in Colonoscopy Study Group, et al. Improving the quality of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;75(1):229–30. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2011.08.023. author reply 230.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Ashraf I, Ashraf S, Siddique S, et al. Hyoscine for polyp detection during colonoscopy: a meta-analysis and systematic review. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2014;6(11):549–54. doi:10.4253/wjge.v6.i11.549. PubMed PMID: 25400869, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4231494.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Cui PJ, Yao J, Han HZ, et al. Does hyoscine butylbromide really improve polyp detection during colonoscopy? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Gastroenterol. 2014;20(22):7034–9. doi:10.3748/wjg.v20.i22.7034. PubMed PMID: 24944499, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4051948, Review.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Madhoun MF, Ali T, Tierney WM, et al. Effect of hyoscine N butylbromide on adenoma detection rate: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Dig Endosc. 2015;27(3):354–60. doi:10.1111/den.12340. Epub 2014 Oct 16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Yoshida N, Naito Y, Hirose R, et al. Prevention of colonic spasm using L-menthol in colonoscopic examination. Int J Colorectal Dis. 2014;29(5):579–83. doi:10.1007/s00384-014-1844-8. Epub 2014 Mar 2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Inoue K, Dohi O, Gen Y, et al. L-menthol improves adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy: a randomized trial. Endoscopy. 2014;46(3):196–202. doi:10.1055/s-0034-1365035. Epub 2014 Feb 26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hou JK, Imler TD, Imperiale TF. Current and future applications of natural language processing in the field of digestive diseases. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014;12(8):1257–61. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2014.05.013. Epub 2014 May 21. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Raju GS, Lum PJ, Slack RS, et al. Natural language processing as an alternative to manual reporting of colonoscopy quality metrics. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;82(3):512–9. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.01.049. PubMed PMID: 25910665, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4540652, Epub 2015 Apr 22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Imler TD, Morea J, Kahi C, et al. Multi-center colonoscopy quality measurement utilizing natural language processing. Am J Gastroenterol. 2015;110(4):543–52. doi:10.1038/ajg.2015.51. Epub 2015 Mar 10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Lieberman DA, Rex DK, Winawer SJ, United States Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, et al. Guidelines for colonoscopy surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology. 2012;143(3):844–57. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2012.06.001. Epub 2012 Jul 3. Review.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Rex DK, Ahnen DJ, Baron JA, et al. Serrated lesions of the colorectum: review and recommendations from an expert panel. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(9):1315–29; quiz 1314, 1330. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2012.161. Epub 2012 Jun 19. PubMed PMID: 22710576; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3629844.

  62. Murphy CC, Sandler RS, Grubber JM, et al. Underuse and overuse of colonoscopy for repeat screening and surveillance in the Veterans Health Administration. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Oct 19. pii: S1542-3565(15)01404-4. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.10.008. [Epub ahead of print]PubMed This study showed that the people who needed colonoscopies most were likely to receive them later than recommended, while those who needed a colonoscopy least were likely to receive them earlier than recommended. This mismatch highlights the reasons to follow national surveillance recommendations: better use of resources and more importantly, better patient care.

  63. Kruse GR, Khan SM, Zaslavsky AM, et al. Overuse of colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening and surveillance. J Gen Intern Med. 2015;30(3):277–83. doi:10.1007/s11606-014-3015-6. PubMed PMID: 25266407, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4351286, Epub 2014 Sep 30.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, et al. Utilization of surveillance colonoscopy in community practice. Gastroenterology. 2010;138(1):73–81. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2009.09.062. PubMed PMID: 19818779, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC2813330, Epub 2009 Oct 8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Singh A, Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Many patients who undergo surgery for colorectal cancer receive surveillance colonoscopies earlier than recommended by guidelines. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2013;11(1):65–72.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2012.08.009. Epub 2012 Aug 16. PubMed PMID: 22902760; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3776496.

  66. Patel N, Tong L, Ahn C, et al. Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline knowledge or fear of missed cancer. Dig Dis Sci. 2015;60(10):2937–45. doi:10.1007/s10620-015-3685-x. Epub 2015 May 7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Yadlapati R, Gawron A, Keswani RN. Patient satisfaction does not correlate with established colonoscopy quality metrics. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109(7):1089–91. doi:10.1038/ajg.2014.115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Ekkelenkamp VE, Dowler K, Valori RM, et al. Patient comfort and quality in colonoscopy. World J Gastroenterol. 2013;19(15):2355–61. doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i15.2355. PubMed PMID: 23613629, PubMed Central PMCID: PMC3631987.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Texas Veterans Health Care System, 7901 Metropolis Drive, Austin, TX, 78744, USA

    Kelli S. Hancock & Ranjan Mascarenhas

  2. Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland VA Medical Center, 3710 SW U.S. Veterans Hospital Rd., P3-GI, Portland, OR, 97239, USA

    David Lieberman

Authors
  1. Kelli S. Hancock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ranjan Mascarenhas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Lieberman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Lieberman.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of Interest

KSH, RM, and DL declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

With regard to the authors’ research cited in this paper, all procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. In addition, all applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on GI Oncology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hancock, K.S., Mascarenhas, R. & Lieberman, D. What Can We Do to Optimize Colonoscopy and How Effective Can We Be?. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 18, 27 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-016-0500-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11894-016-0500-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation