↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

The impact of anesthesia providers on major morbidity following screening colonoscopies

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
The impact of anesthesia providers on major morbidity following screening colonoscopies
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, May 2015
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s77408
Pubmed ID
Authors

David A Lubarsky, Jason R Guercio, John W Hanna, Maria T Abreu, Qianli Ma, Claudia Uribe, David J Birnbach, David R Sinclair, Keith A Candiotti

Abstract

Few studies evaluate the impact of anesthesia providers during procedures, such as colonoscopy, on low-risk patients. The objective of this study was to compare the effect of anesthesia providers on several outcome variables, including major morbidity, following screening colonoscopies. A propensity-matched cohort study of 14,006 patients who enrolled with a national insurer offering health maintenance organization (HMO), preferred provider organization (PPO), and Medicare Advantage plans for a screening colonoscopy between July 1, 2005 and June 30, 2007 were studied. Records were evaluated for completion of the colonoscopy, new cancer diagnosis (colon, anal, rectal) within 6 months of the colonoscopy, new primary diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI), new primary diagnosis of stroke, hospital admission within 7 days of the colonoscopy, and adherence to guidelines for use of anesthesia providers. The presence of an anesthesia provider did not affect major morbidity or the percent of completed exams. Overall morbidity within 7 days was very low. When an anesthesia provider was present, a nonsignificant trend toward greater cancer detection within 6 months of the procedure was observed. Adherence to national guidelines regarding the use of anesthesia providers for low-risk patients was poor. A difference in outcome associated with the presence or absence of an anesthesia provider during screening colonoscopy in terms of MI, stroke, or hospital admission within 7 days of the procedure was not observed. Adherence to published guidelines for the use of anesthesia providers is low. The incidence of completed exams was unaffected by the presence of an anesthesia provider. However, a nonstatistically significant trend toward increased cancer detection requires further study.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 20%
Student > Postgraduate 4 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Professor 1 5%
Other 3 15%
Unknown 4 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 65%
Unspecified 1 5%
Psychology 1 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2015.
All research outputs
#20,655,488
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#764
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,508
of 278,911 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#7
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,911 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.