Search

Background: Colorectal cancer is one of the most common forms of cancer in Norway, and typically develops from colorectal polyps. For benign colorectal polyps, endoscopic removal is recommended to avoid unnecessary surgery. This study identifies the extent of surgical treatment of benign polyps in the period 1 January 2008-31 December 2021., Material and Method: We obtained statistics from the Norwegian Patient Registry on the surgical resection of benign colorectal polyps, number of colonoscopies performed and number of patients with the diagnostic code for benign polyp in the study period. Population size from Statistics Norway was used to calculate annual incidences of the procedure., Results: The number of patients with benign polyps increased from 211 per 100 000 population to 444 per 100 000 during the study period. The number of colonoscopies increased from 9.4 per 1 000 population to 16.7 per 1 000. The number of surgical resections of benign colorectal polyps per year increased from 4.2 per 100 000 population to 6.3 per 100 000. The total number of unique patients with benign polyps in the period was 215 736, of which 2.1 % received surgical treatment, with the figures varying from 2.0 % in 2008 to 1.6 % in 2021., Interpretation: Our results show that surgical treatment of benign polyps is still widespread in Norway. This impacts on patient safety and health economics. We propose the establishment of multidisciplinary teams and enhanced endoscopic competence in Norwegian health trusts.

Background: The Norwegian Directorate of Health produces national clinical guidelines for the health service, and the development of guidelines must follow international standards for trustworthy clinical practice. We investigated whether the standards are being adhered to., Material and Method: We used the National Guideline Clearinghouse Extent Adherence to Trustworthy Standards Instrument (NEATS) as the scoring tool and assessed a randomly selected chapter from national clinical guidelines that were published or updated during the period 2013 to January 2022. NEATS has 15 domain items; three are assessed with the response alternatives Yes/No/Not known, and twelve are assessed on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 corresponds to very low trustworthiness and 5 to very high trustworthiness. The assessments were made individually by two authors. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with exact or close reliability, and Cohen's kappa coefficient., Results: We included 60 relevant guidelines. For nine of the twelve NEATS domain items assessed using the Likert scale, there was very low or low adherence to standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines (median score 1 or 2). The domain items with the lowest score (median score 1) were 'The study selection', 'Description of the studies and the results', 'Rating the strength of recommendations' and 'External review'. The domain item with the highest score was 'Specific and unambiguous articulation of recommendations' (median score 4)., Interpretation: The majority of the national clinical guidelines had low adherence to the standards for trustworthy clinical guidelines assessed using the NEATS scoring tool.

BACKGROUND Questionnaire surveys are important for surveying the health and disease behaviour of the population, but recent years have seen a fall in participation. Our study tested whether incentives can increase participation in these surveys.MATERIAL AND METHOD We sent a questionnaire on risk factors for colorectal cancer (height, weight, smoking, self-reported diagnoses, family medical history) to non-screened participants in a randomised colonoscopy screening study for colorectal cancer: participants who were invited but did not attend for colonoscopy examination (screening-invited) and persons who were not offered colonoscopy (control group). The persons were randomised to three groups: no financial incentive, lottery scratch cards included with the form, or a prize draw for a tablet computer when they responded to the form. We followed up all the incentive groups with telephone reminder calls, and before the prize draw for the tablet computer.RESULTS Altogether 3 705 of 6 795 persons (54.5  %) responded to the questionnaire; 43.5  % of those invited for screening and 65.6  % of the control group (p < 0.001). The proportion that answered was not influenced by incentives, either among those invited for screening (42.4  % in the non-prize group, 45.5  % in the lottery scratch card group and 42.6  % in the prize draw group; p = 0.24), or in the control group (65.6  % in the non-prize group, 66.4  % in the lottery scratch card group and 64.7  % in the prize draw group; p = 0.69). Prior to reminder calls, 39.2  % responded. A further 15.3  % responded following telephone reminder calls (14.1  % of the screening-invited and 16.5  % of the control group; p < 0.001).INTERPRETATION Incentives did not increase participation in this medical questionnaire survey. Use of telephone reminder calls and telephone interviews increased participation, but whether this is more effective than other methods requires further study.

Background: Colonoscopies are common examinations at Norwegian hospitals. In contrast to many other countries, the majority of colonoscopies in Norway are conducted without routine sedation or analgesia. We wanted to investigate whether current Norwegian practice offers adequate pain relief., Material and Method: The material consists of prospectively recorded outpatient colonoscopies in the period January 2003-December 2011 performed at Norwegian hospitals in the quality assurance network for gastrointestinal endoscopy (Gastronet). We analysed demographic patient data and data from colonoscopies. Patients' experience of pain (none, slight, moderate or severe pain) in connection with the examination was established with the aid of a validated questionnaire., Results: Data from 61,749 colonoscopies (55% on women) performed at 29 different hospitals were analysed. Colonoscopies were perceived as moderately or very painful by 33% of the patients (41% of the women, 24% of the men, p < 0.001). There were substantial differences between hospitals as to the percentage of colonoscopies that were perceived as moderately or very painful (from 9% to 43%, p < 0.001) and the use of sedatives and analgesics for the colonoscopies (from 1% to 92% of the examinations, p < 0.001). Only 23% of those who found the colonoscopy painful received analgesics. Pethidine was used in 95% of the cases in which analgesics were used during the examination., Interpretation: Many patients find colonoscopies painful. Pain relief practice varies substantially between hospitals. Pethidine is an analgesic with a slow onset of action, and should perhaps be replaced with more rapidly acting opiates.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancers in Norway. An increasing incidence is observed. CRC develops from benign adenomas in the colon over a long time. This paper reviews the evidence for drug prevention and screening for CRC., Material and Methods: Medline was systematically searched using the MeSH terms "Colorectal neoplasm AND prevention and control", with a limitation on randomised trials in humans., Results and Interpretation: Acetylsalicylic-acid, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and COX-2 inhibitors are shown to reduce adenoma growth, but it remains uncertain whether these drugs reduce the incidence of CRC. The drugs are associated with serious side-effects. Drug-prevention of CRC can therefore not be recommended. Faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) is the only CRC screening method where randomised trials have shown to effectively reduce CRC mortality. FOBT has no effect on CRC incidence and reduced compliance and effect have been observed over time. Endoscopic screening has a potentially larger effect, and can theoretically prevent CRC, but high quality studies are needed. Data from randomised trials are awaited for sigmoidoscopy screening. Colonoscopy screening has not been subjected to randomised trials and can thus not be recommended for population-based screening.

The present paper describes guidelines for the presentation of statistical analysis in manuscripts submitted to the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, in order to ensure a reasonable standard of statistic presentation in the journal. The paper is a supplement to the guidelines for authors in the journal and should not be used as replacement for statistics manuals.

Background: Colonoscopy is regarded as the gold standard for diagnosis of colorectal disease, and increasingly considered a primary screening approach for colorectal cancer. The quality of the procedure varies between centres and endoscopists. The aim of the present study was to describe a quality control programme for colonoscopy performance in a secondary care centre., Material and Methods: Starting in 2001, we established a systematic quality control programme. All patients received a questionnaire on their satisfaction with and pain during and after examination. The questionnaire was to be filled in the next day and mailed back to the centre. Pain and discomfort during and after colonoscopy and caecum intubation rate were registered as indicators of quality., Results: During the study period of 15 month, 1354 colonoscopies were performed by 16 endoscopists. 94% of examinations were performed without any sedation. 1054 (78%) of patients responded to the questionnaire, 99% of whom were generally satisfied. The caecum intubation rate was 82%. While 23% of patients scored for moderate pain during the examination and 16% complained of severe pain, 61% had no or only light pain. Significant differences between endoscopists regarding pain and caecum intubation rate were found in a multiple logistic regression model., Interpretation: A satisfactory feedback from patients was observed, with a high response rate to the questionnaire survey and high overall satisfaction, in spite of the fact that about one third of patients experienced moderate or severe pain. There were significant variations in performance between endoscopists.