Systematic Review: Patient Perceptions of Monitoring Tools in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
Acceptability
Inflammatory bowel disease
Monitoring tools
Patient preference
Tolerability
Journal
Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology
ISSN: 2515-2092
Titre abrégé: J Can Assoc Gastroenterol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101738684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2021
Apr 2021
Historique:
received:
22
11
2019
accepted:
16
01
2020
entrez:
15
4
2021
pubmed:
24
1
2020
medline:
24
1
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a lifelong disease requiring frequent assessment to guide treatment and prevent flares or progression. Multiple tools are available for clinicians to monitor disease activity; however, there are a paucity of data to inform which monitoring tools are most acceptable to patients. The review aims to describe the available evidence for patient preference, satisfaction, tolerance and/or acceptability of the available monitoring tools in adults with IBD. Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from January 1980 to April 2019 for all study types reporting on the perspectives of adults with confirmed IBD on monitoring tools, where two or more tools were compared. Outcome measures with summary and descriptive data were presented. In 10 studies evaluating 1846 participants, monitoring tools included venipuncture, stool collection, gastrointestinal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, wireless capsule endoscopy, barium follow-through and endoscopy. Outcome domains were patient satisfaction, acceptability of monitoring tool and patient preference. Noninvasive investigations were preferable to endoscopy in nine studies. When assessed, gastrointestinal ultrasound was consistently associated with greater acceptability and satisfaction compared with endoscopy or other imaging modalities. Adults with IBD preferred noninvasive investigations, in particular gastrointestinal ultrasound, as compared to endoscopy for monitoring disease activity. When assessing disease activity, patient perceptions should be considered in the selection of monitoring tools. Further research should address whether adpoting monitoring approaches considered more acceptable to patients results in greater satisfaction, adherence and ultimately more beneficial clinical outcomes.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a lifelong disease requiring frequent assessment to guide treatment and prevent flares or progression. Multiple tools are available for clinicians to monitor disease activity; however, there are a paucity of data to inform which monitoring tools are most acceptable to patients. The review aims to describe the available evidence for patient preference, satisfaction, tolerance and/or acceptability of the available monitoring tools in adults with IBD.
METHODS
METHODS
Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central and Clinical Trials.gov were searched from January 1980 to April 2019 for all study types reporting on the perspectives of adults with confirmed IBD on monitoring tools, where two or more tools were compared. Outcome measures with summary and descriptive data were presented.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In 10 studies evaluating 1846 participants, monitoring tools included venipuncture, stool collection, gastrointestinal ultrasound, computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, wireless capsule endoscopy, barium follow-through and endoscopy. Outcome domains were patient satisfaction, acceptability of monitoring tool and patient preference. Noninvasive investigations were preferable to endoscopy in nine studies. When assessed, gastrointestinal ultrasound was consistently associated with greater acceptability and satisfaction compared with endoscopy or other imaging modalities.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Adults with IBD preferred noninvasive investigations, in particular gastrointestinal ultrasound, as compared to endoscopy for monitoring disease activity. When assessing disease activity, patient perceptions should be considered in the selection of monitoring tools. Further research should address whether adpoting monitoring approaches considered more acceptable to patients results in greater satisfaction, adherence and ultimately more beneficial clinical outcomes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33855269
doi: 10.1093/jcag/gwaa001
pii: gwaa001
pmc: PMC8023822
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e31-e41Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.
Références
Gut. 2008 Nov;57(11):1518-23
pubmed: 18566104
Gut. 2014 Jan;63(1):88-95
pubmed: 23974954
Eur Radiol. 2019 Mar;29(3):1083-1093
pubmed: 30128615
Am J Gastroenterol. 2010 Feb;105(2):289-97
pubmed: 19861953
Gut. 1996 Jun;38(6):905-10
pubmed: 8984031
Dig Dis. 2009;27(4):482-93
pubmed: 19897964
Dig Liver Dis. 2017 Aug;49(8):854-863
pubmed: 28512034
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2005 Dec;3(12):1221-8
pubmed: 16361048
Gastroenterology. 2015 May;148(5):938-947.e1
pubmed: 25620670
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Sep;23(9):1600-1604
pubmed: 28590341
Rev Enferm. 2014 Dec;37(12):43-6
pubmed: 26121884
Scand J Gastroenterol. 2015 Jan;50(1):66-73
pubmed: 25523557
Eur Radiol. 2014 Jan;24(1):26-33
pubmed: 23921767
BMC Gastroenterol. 2019 Feb 13;19(1):30
pubmed: 30760205
Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016 Jun 08;10:1043-50
pubmed: 27354774
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2010 Sep;16(9):1550-6
pubmed: 20803698
Dig Dis Sci. 2014 Apr;59(4):829-37
pubmed: 24352705
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016 May;22(5):1168-83
pubmed: 26958988
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015 Mar;30(3):446-52
pubmed: 25529767
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016 May;22(5):1246-61
pubmed: 27070909
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2018 Jan;47(1):6-15
pubmed: 28994131
Am J Gastroenterol. 2015 Sep;110(9):1324-38
pubmed: 26303131
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Sep;19(10):2111-7
pubmed: 23883959
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2017 Aug;23(8):1425-1433
pubmed: 28570431
Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2011 Jul;34(2):125-45
pubmed: 21615440
Gut. 2018 May;67(5):973-985
pubmed: 29437914
Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Aug;3(8):548-558
pubmed: 29914843
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2012 Oct;18(10):1894-9
pubmed: 22238138
J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Dec;23 Suppl 2:S262-7
pubmed: 19120909
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2018 Apr 23;24(5):977-988
pubmed: 29688470
Gastrointest Endosc. 2017 Jun;85(6):1157-1168.e2
pubmed: 28069475
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2013 Oct;19(11):2501-8
pubmed: 23792551
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Apr;111(4):541-51
pubmed: 27002800
Br J Radiol. 2012 Jun;85(1014):765-9
pubmed: 22010031
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2019 Jul 17;25(8):1313-1338
pubmed: 30883639
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016 Oct;13(10):567-79
pubmed: 27580684