<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<recommendedContent xmlns="http://api.mspoke.com">
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_422"
                     title="Nurses Often Silent About Workplace Violence (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.013"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HospitalBasedMedicine/WorkForce/tb/18335?impressionId=1265801168589"
                     
      The physical and verbal abuse nurses face on the job often goes unreported, according to an Australian survey.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Over the prior year, 52% of nurses in one community hospital said they had been physically assaulted and 69% reported being threatened with violence, according to Rose Chapman, PhD, of the University of Western Australia in Perth, and colleagues.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Verbal abuse was almost universal, being reported by 92% of respondents, the researchers wrote in the February issue of the &lt;em&gt;Journal of Clinical Nursing&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;However, only half mentioned the incidents to senior staff or co-workers, and just 16% filed an official report.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;&quot;The reasons for not reporting are many and may include lack of time and management support and the belief that being attacked is &apos;just part of the job,&apos;&quot; they wrote.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;The same is true in the U.S., where assaults and under-reporting appear just as common as suggested in the Australian survey, commented Kathleen M. McPhaul, PhD, RN, MPH, of the University of Maryland School of Nursing in Baltimore, who has been involved in such research in the U.S.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;A culture change would likely be needed to make a real difference for nurses, Chapman&apos;s group suggested.&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Hospitals would have to ensure that nurses have necessary support, education, encouragement, and time to complete official reports. Nurses who report abuse should get positive feedback from all levels of nursing, they said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;If administrators and governments are serious in their intention to reduce workplace violence and provide staff with safe work environments, they should be seen to act on all reported [incidents],&quot; which is rare today, Chapman&apos;s group wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, currently there&apos;s no strong lever or incentive to address this kind of workplace abuse since hospitals focus mainly on patient safety as part of accreditation, and national and state workplace safety organizations have little mechanism for monitoring such incidents, McPhaul noted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers&apos; survey was intended to reach all 332 nurses working at one nontertiary hospital across all departments  --  emergency, medical, surgical, maternity, pediatric, and mental health.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 113 nurses who responded were mainly women in their early 40s who worked part time.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among them, about three-quarters reported at least one incident of workplace violence over the preceding 12 months  --  25% said it occurred weekly, 27% said monthly, and for 25% it was rarer, at once every six months. &lt;ul&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Fully 30% of the nurses said they had been involved in an episode involving a weapon  --  often hospital equipment and more rarely a knife or gun.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The number of total incidents was lowest among nurse midwives, with a mean of 1.67 per year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Not surprisingly, the rate was highest among emergency department and mental health staff, who reported an average of 46.43 and 40.39 episodes over 12 months.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;One reason behind the high risk in these two departments may be the &quot;shift to a community-based approach to mental health care and a reduction in mental health beds&quot; such that the same psychiatric patients that assault mental health department nurses are mainstreamed to the emergency department as their point of entry to the hospital, the researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;However, more years of experience or higher educational qualification didn&apos;t appear to protect nurses. Senior nurse unit managers and clinical nurse specialists actually reported more physical assaults than less senior nurses.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Age and gender didn&apos;t predict occurrence or type of incident either.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;When nurses did report workplace violence or verbal abuse, it was most often to their immediate manager (29%), other senior nursing staff (14.5%), or to their friends and colleagues (6%).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Overall, 30% of nurses who responded to the survey gave as their reason for not reporting that workplace violence happens all the time and is simply part of the job.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even among those who did make a report of some sort, half said they thought hospital management failed to act on it.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In fact, when the researchers audited hospital records, they found that 42 official incident reports had been filed by nurses over the prior one year period, nearly always involving injuries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In 95% of the cases, the only action taken by the hospital was making staff in the area aware of the incident. No other actions had been documented.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cautioned that the voluntary nature and limited scope of the study may have limited generalizability, although the occurrence of violence against nurses is likely similar across developed countries.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The researchers provided no information on conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;McPhaul reported no conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_416"
                     title="For Diabetes, P4P Improves Patient Care, Outcomes (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.011"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PracticeManagement/Reimbursement/tb/18328?impressionId=1265801168589"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Measures of quality of care and clinical outcomes improved significantly when diabetic patients in a large private health plan were treated by physicians receiving pay-for-performance incentives, researchers said.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The risk that diabetic patients would be hospitalized was 25% lower (incidence rate ratio 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93) among those seen for three consecutive years by physicians who received extra pay for meeting quality-of-care targets, compared with the risk for patients whose physicians did not receive such incentives, reported Judy Ying Chen, MD, MSHS, of IMS Health in Woodland Hills, Calif., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;High-quality care  --  defined as receiving at least two tests for glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) and one for LDL cholesterol during a given year  --  was delivered 16% more often by physicians in the pay-for-performance system (rate ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.22), the researchers also reported online in the &lt;em&gt;American Journal of Managed Care&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This study showed a robust, consistent, significant, and positive association between increased receipt of appropriate laboratory monitoring of A1c and LDL cholesterol levels and decreased hospitalization rates,&quot; Chen and colleagues declared.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the researchers also found that quality of care diminished when patients saw multiple primary care physicians during a given year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;This finding supports the hypothesis that patients have better outcomes when they have a medical home,&quot; Chen and colleagues indicated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers examined records of diabetic patients enrolled with Hawaii Medical Services Association, a large preferred provider organization, from 1999 to 2006. The plan had about 19,600 such patients in 1999 and 32,365 in 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The plan offered physicians in the network the opportunity to earn bonuses of 1.5% to 7.5% of their base fees for meeting care-quality targets including HbA1c and LDL cholesterol testing of diabetic patients. Bonuses ranged from $10,000 to $16,000 annually. Starting in 2001, physicians could earn an extra $6,000 if their adherence to care-quality processes improved over the previous year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bonuses were paid each year on the basis of administrative records for the previous year.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The proportion of diabetic patients seen by physicians in the pay-for-performance plan increased from 78.7% in 1999 to 94.6% in 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As a result of the bonus structure, Chen and colleagues observed, improvements in care quality lagged implementation of these incentives by a year or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The most substantial improvements in quality of care and patient outcomes were seen among patients seen continuously by a physician participating in the pay-for-performance system from 2004 to 2006.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with patients seen by physicians who chose not to participate in the system, those whose treatment was subject to the incentives were seen by primary care physicians and endocrinologists far more often: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Six to 10 outpatient visits in a year: odds ratio 2.16 (95% CI 2.00 to 2.33)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Eleven or more outpatient visits in a year: OR 2.35 (95% CI 2.14 to 2.57)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Visit to an endocrinologist: OR 1.56 (95% CI 1.38 to 1.75)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Among patients receiving quality care continuously from 2004 to 2006, the chance of being hospitalized in 2006 was reduced by 33% compared with patients whose care failed to meet the quality target at some point (rate ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.75).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But patients who saw more than two different primary care physicians in 2006 had a dramatically increased rate of hospitalizations (RR 6.13, 95% CI 5.33 to 7.04).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Chen and colleagues noted several limitations to the study, including the fact that it was conducted in a PPO setting and might not be generalizable to health maintenance organizations or other frameworks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also had no data for years before the program started, leaving open the possibility that physicians participating in the pay-for-performance program were those who were already following treatment guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The study also included only one clinical outcome; effects on others such as hypoglycemic episodes, cardiovascular events, and meeting HbA1c targets were not measured and might have been different.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers also acknowledged that the claims data underlying the study might not have been totally accurate, and they noted that it did not include other factors known to affect hospitalizations such as cardiovascular risk factors.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;The study was funded by the Hawaii Medical Service Association, the health plan that was the focus of the work.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;IMS Health is a healthcare consulting firm that, among other services, advises health insurers on performance and quality programs.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Several co-authors were employees of the Hawaii Medical Service Association, and officials of the group reviewed the manuscript before submission. But the authors declared that the association had no influence on the study design, analysis, or results reported. No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_377"
                     title="Advisory Panel Rates Genomic Cancer Tests"
                     score="0.01"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/tb/18269?impressionId=1265801168589"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Some genomic tests aimed at identifying patients most likely to respond to cancer drugs won a thumbs-up from a Medicare advisory panel, but others didn&apos;t make the grade.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;As part of a national coverage determination under way at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, members of the Medicare Evidence Development &amp;amp; Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) last week rated the clinical value of several pharmacogenomic cancer tests now available.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The tests would be used to select patients for treatment with drugs including tamoxifen, irinotecan (Camptosar), trastuzumab (Herceptin), and imatinib (Gleevec).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not previously decided whether such tests should be reimbursed by Medicare, although testing is already routine for some of these treatments.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The FDA-approved labeling for trastuzumab requires such testing. Imatinib&apos;s approvals include chronic myeloid leukemia featuring the BCR-ABL &quot;Philadelphia chromosome&quot; mutation, although the label doesn&apos;t explicitly mention testing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;CMS is aware that the body of evidence on the role of pharmacogenomic testing in cancer continues to evolve,&quot; according to the agency&apos;s notice of the meeting.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Recognizing the rapid accumulation of such evidence, CMS seeks guidance from the panel to inform future coverage determinations. We want to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to any demonstrated improved health outcomes of pharmacogenomic testing, and are protected from inaccurate or inappropriate pharmacogenomic testing that could compromise therapy or increase the risks of adverse events during therapy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;MEDCAC panelists were asked to rate their confidence in the clinical utility of five tests and in the scientific evidence available for review.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The five tests cover: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the CYP2D6 drug-metabolizing enzyme for breast cancer patients who are candidates for tamoxifen&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Polymorphisms in the UGT1A1 gene for colon cancer patients considered for irinotecan treatment&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of HER/neu epidermal growth factor receptor expression in patients with breast cancer, indicating suitability for trastuzumab&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Presence of the BCR-ABL mutation in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia who would be candidates for imatinib&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;Mutations in the K-ras gene for metastatic colorectal cancer patients eligible for cetuximab (Erbitux) or panitumumab (Vectibix)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 15 panel members assigned values of one to five, reflecting low to high confidence, to each test. A score of two reflected medium-low confidence, while a four meant medium-high confidence.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Most of the panelists agreed that the evidence underlying the tests for CYP2D6 and UGT1A1 polymorphisms was still too scant for an assessment of their clinical value. Mean scores for these tests were 2.07 and 1.83, respectively, with nearly all votes either a one or two.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But MEDCAC members were more confident that the usefulness of the other three tests for diagnostic and monitoring purposes could be evaluated. Mean scores for those tests were all well above four.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;For the HER/neu, BCR-ABL, and K-ras tests, since members believed the evidence was adequate for assessment, MEDCAC also voted on whether their use actually would improve health outcomes in cancer patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;A third ranking provided the committee&apos;s views on whether the conclusions could be generalized to the Medicare population and patients in the community.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean scores for those rankings were all also above four, indicating the panel&apos;s support for these tests as clinically beneficial.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, when asked whether there was enough evidence to assess the utility of the BCR-ABL test in detecting treatment failure, panelists didn&apos;t think so. Most of those votes were twos, and the mean was 2.47.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS has not given a time line for deciding whether to approve Medicare coverage for the tests.&lt;/p&gt;

    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_309"
                     title="Increasing Copays: Penny-Wise but Pound-Foolish? (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Geriatrics/GeneralGeriatrics/tb/18173?impressionId=1265801168589"
                     
      &lt;p&gt;Raising seniors&apos; copayments for ambulatory care to offset increasing healthcare costs may backfire on insurers, researchers asserted.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Seniors enrolled in Medicare plans that increased copayments had significantly fewer outpatient visits but spent more time in the hospital than patients in plans that left copayments untouched, according to Amal Trivedi, MD, MPH, of Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Assuming an average reimbursement of $60 for an outpatient visit, seven annual visits per enrollee, and an average copay increase of $8.50 per visit, a plan should save $7,150 for every 100 enrollees, they noted in the Jan. 28 &lt;em&gt;New England Journal of Medicine&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;But, assuming an average cost of $11,065 per hospitalization of a person 65 to 84, the researchers estimated that the costs for inpatient care would actually increase by $24,000 for every 100 enrollees in the year after copays are increased.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Even using more conservative criteria, the increased costs for inpatient care would nearly double any savings from increasing copays, they argued.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Cost-sharing has generally been thought to reduce total healthcare spending without harming health for the average person,&quot; the researchers wrote, but these results suggest increasing copays in Medicare beneficiaries &quot;may be a particularly ill-advised cost-containment strategy.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Increasing copayments may be particularly harmful to older patients, they said, because they have lower incomes and are more likely to have poor health and greater out-of-pocket healthcare expenses than younger patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;To explore the issue in a Medicare population, Trivedi and colleagues compared the use of outpatient and inpatient care between enrollees in 18 plans that increased copays for ambulatory care and 18 that did not. The study included 899,060 patients.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;According to data from the Medicare Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, mean copays increased during the study period for both primary care ($7.38 to $14.38) and specialty care ($12.66 to $22.05) in the case plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean copays remained stable at $8.33 and $11.38 for primary and specialty care, respectively, in the control plans.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In both groups, there were increases in the number of ambulatory visits over time, but the increase was smaller in the plans that raised copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;There was also a rise in the number of hospitalizations, the proportion of patients who were hospitalized, and the length of time spent in the hospital in both groups, but there were larger increases in the plans that increased copays.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Compared with the control plans, in the year after the increase in copays, case plans had: &lt;ul&gt; &lt;li&gt;19.8 fewer annual outpatient visits per 100 enrollees (95% CI 16.6 to 23.1)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;2.2 additional annual hospital admissions per 100 enrollees (95% CI 1.8 to 2.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;13.4 more annual inpatient days per 100 enrollees (95% CI 10.2 to 16.6)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;li&gt;A 0.7% increase in the proportion of enrollees who were hospitalized (95% CI 0.51% to 0.95%)&lt;/li&gt; &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The findings were amplified among enrollees living in areas of lower income and education, black patients, and those who had hypertension, diabetes, or a history of myocardial infarction.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Trivedi and colleagues noted some limitations of the analysis: it was not randomized, and unmeasured differences could have influenced the results.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Also, the case and control plans could not be matched in a geographic area smaller than census region because of the small number of Medicare plans, and data were lacking on diagnoses, procedures, and costs associated with hospital admissions and outpatient visits.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;Trivedi is the recipient of a Pfizer Health Policy Scholars Award and a career development award from the Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Services.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The authors reported no relevant conflicts of interest.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
    <recommendedItem id="20100101_19_304"
                     title="&apos;Virtual&apos; Colon Scans Effective in Seniors (CME/CE)"
                     score="0.004"
                     href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/HematologyOncology/ColonCancer/tb/18164?impressionId=1265801168589"
                     
      Patients 65 and older are as suitable as younger individuals for CT colonography, said researchers conducting a large retrospective study.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;Advanced neoplasias were detected with CT colonography  --  often called &quot;virtual colonoscopy&quot;  --  in older patients at more than double the rate in the general screening population, reported David H. Kim, MD, of the University of Wisconsin in Madison, Wis., and colleagues in the February issue of &lt;em&gt;Radiology&lt;/em&gt;.&lt;br&gt;
&lt;br&gt;They found that 7.6% of older patients had advanced neoplasias, compared with 3.2% of all patients screened in the university&apos;s clinic (&lt;em&gt;P&lt;/em&gt;&amp;lt;0.001).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the basis of this and other findings in 577 individuals 65 and older versus the entire group of 3,120 patients undergoing the procedure, Kim and colleagues concluded that &quot;CT colonography performance is maintained in an older cohort.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&quot;Overall, the observations from this clinical experience confirm that CT colonography may be a valuable screening modality in the older population,&quot; they wrote.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the study did not address several objections raised by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) in its decision last year to deny Medicare coverage for the procedure. (See &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; mce_href=&quot;http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/Medicare/14186&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;Medicare Finalizes Denial of Virtual Colonoscopy Coverage&lt;/a&gt;)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;CMS had pointed to relatively low sensitivity of CT colonography compared with optical colonoscopy in prospective trials, especially for small lesions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The agency also determined that CT colonography increased the costs of positive findings, since abnormalities in the CT scans must be confirmed with optical colonoscopy. In addition, CMS said there was no evidence to support claims that the less invasive imaging procedure would be more acceptable to patients and therefore would raise screening rates.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The data analyzed by Kim and colleagues did not allow for calculations of false-negative rates or predictive values of positive or negative findings. Nor did the researchers report cost information.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Mean age of their older cohort was 69.2 (SD 3.8). The oldest was 79.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers reported that 15.3% of the older patients were referred for optical colonoscopy on the basis of the CT results, compared with 7.9% of the overall screening group.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Less than 4% of positive findings were determined to be false with the optical procedure (3.6% for polyps 6 to 10 mm in diameter, 2.1% for larger lesions).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Of the 59 advanced neoplasias identified in the older patients, all but three were at least 10 mm in size.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The scans also suggested abnormalities outside the colon in 89 (15.4%) patients. Of these, 45 received a full workup, which revealed substantial and previously unsuspected diagnoses in 21 cases  -- 18 were vascular aneurysms. The other three included one lung tumor, a femoral hernia, and a malrotation.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Kim and colleagues reported that no &quot;substantial complications&quot; such as perforations or major hemorrhage occurred in the older patients, either with the CT scan or follow-up colonoscopy.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;They also indicated that the ratio of large to small neoplasias was similar in the older patients compared with their CT screening group as a whole. Histologic and morphologic findings were similar as well.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The researchers cited the observational nature of the study, in which negative findings were not corroborated with optical colonoscopy, and its restriction to a single center as its main limitations.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;div style=&quot;float:left;border-style:solid;border-width:1px;border-color:#8dabbc;font-family:arial;font-size:12px;background-color:#DBE9F2;padding:5px;&quot;&gt;&lt;p&gt;No external funding for the study was reported.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Kim and one co-author reported relationships with Viatronix and Medicsight and are co-founders of a company called VirtuoCTC, which produces educational materials on CT colonography.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;clear:both;&quot;&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
    </recommendedItem>
</recommendedContent>