You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 53, Issue 2
  • A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Colon cancer
A prospective study of colonoscopy practice in the UK today: are we adequately prepared for national colorectal cancer screening tomorrow?
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 18 April 2016
    Poor bowel preparation: a poor excuse?

    Dear Editor

    In the article by Bowles et al,[1] poor bowel preparation is cited as the cause of 19.6% of failures to achieve complete colonoscopy. Similarly high figures of upto 35% have been quoted elsewhere.

    In a personal series of 1195 procedures, only 19 of 197 (9.6%) failures were attributed to this cause. This difference is highly significant (p <0.001).

    As choice of laxative agen...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 18 April 2016
    Patients' understanding of colonoscopy risk is sub-optimal
    • Richard Makins, Specialist Registrar in Gastroenterology
    • Other Contributors:
      • Anne Ballinger, David Rampton

    Dear Editor

    We read with interest the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) lead audit by Bowles et al.[1] into colonoscopy practice within the UK. As part of the audit the authors questioned 1200 patients as to their experience of the procedure. Of the respondents, only 81.5% received written information with only 54.9% recalling information on possible adverse events such as bleeding and perforation. Th...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.