The categories for response to a DATTA question are defined as follows: Established—this technology has been adequately evaluated and its (A) safety or (B) effectiveness is accepted as appropriate by the practicing medical community for the given indication in the speciified patient population; promising—given current knowledge, the (A) safety or (B) effectiveness of this technology appears to be appropriate for the given indication in the specified patient population; as more experience and long-term follow-up are accumulated, this interim rating will change; investigational—there is no consensus on the (A) safety or (B) effectiveness of this technology to date, there is insufficient evidence to determine its appropriateness, or it warrants further study; use of this technology for the given indication in the specified patient population should be confined largely to research protocols; doubtful—given current knowledge, the (A) safety or (B) effectiveness of this technology appears to be inappropriate for the given indication in the specified patient population; as more experience and long-term follow-up are accumulated, this interim rating will change; and unacceptable—the (A) safety or (B) effectiveness of this technology is regarded by the practicing medical community as inappropriate for the given indication in the specified patient population.
For each question, any response category receiving 50% or more of the panel's votes was tested for a consensus by assuming that the DATTA panel is a sample from a broader population of experts. Using exact binomial probabilities, the likelihood of the observed vote was calculated if exactly 50% of the total population of experts support that response for that question. Hence, the null hypothesis is that 50% of all experts support the response, and the alternative, one-tailed, hypothesis is that more than 50% of all experts support the response. Rejection of the null hypothesis, and acceptance of the alternative, was interpreted as evidence of a majority opinion in the total population of experts, and a consensus was achieved. If no consensus was found, the categories were reorganized and reanalyzed. The definitions of "promising" and "established" include the concept of "appropriate," while the "doubtful" and "unacceptable" definitions include the concept of "inappropriate." The original five categories were thus, if necessary, reorganized into three categories, "appropriate," "investigational," and "inappropriate"; an analysis of any category with 50% or more of the vote was performed. P values for the survey responses are as follows: Question 1A, 48 "established" responses out of 49, P<.0001, consensus for established; question 1B, 39 "established" responses out of 49, P<.0001, consensus for established. Question 2A, 38 "established" responses out of 49, P<.0001, consensus for established; question 2B, 26 "inappropriate" responses out of 49, P=.39, no consensus; one respondent offered no opinion for questions 1 and 2.
Kalloo AN, Benjamin SB. Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy: important screening tool for colorectal disorders . Postgrad Med. 1989;85:145-150.
Sleisinger MW, Fordtrom JS, eds. Gastrointestinal Disease . Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1983:1620.
Haubrich WS. Comments relevant to rigid proctosigmoidoscopy, flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy . Gastrointest Endosc.
1980;26:18-19.Link to Article
Vellacott KD, Hardcastle JD. An evaluation of flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy . BMJ
. 1981;283:1583-1586.Link to Article
Winawer SJ, Leidner SD, Boyle C, Kurtz RC. Comparison of flexible sigmoidoscopy with other diagnostic techniques in the diagnosis of rectocolon neoplasia . Dig Dis Sci.
1979;24:277-281.Link to Article
Winawer SJ, Miller C, Lightdale C, et al. Patient response to sigmoidoscopy: a randomized controlled trial of rigid and flexible sigmoidoscopy . Cancer
. 1987;60:1905-1908.Link to Article
Johnson RA, Quan M, Rodney WM. Flexible sigmoidoscopy in primary care: the procedure and its potential . Postgrad Med. 1982;72:151-156.
Helzberg JH, McCallum RW. Flexible sigmoidoscopy: safety and usefulness in the geriatric patient . Geriatrics . 1985;40:105-107, 111.
Hocutt JE Jr, Jaffe R, Owens GM, Walters DT. Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy in family medicine . Am Fam Physician . 1984;29:131-138.
Smith LE. Symposium on outpatient anorectal procedures: flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy: an office procedure . Can J Surg. 1985;28:233-236.
Rodney WM, Beaber RJ, Johnson R, Quan M. Physician compliance with colorectal cancer screening (1978-1983): the impact of flexible sigmoidoscopy . J Fam Pract. 1985;20:265-269.
Rodney WM, Quan M, Johnson RA, et al. Impact of flexible sigmoidoscopy on physician compliance with colorectal cancer screening protocol . J Fam Pract. 1982;15:885-889.
Johnson RA, Quan M, Rodney WM. Continued assessment of flexible sigmoidoscopy in the family practice residency . J Fam Pract. 1984;18:723-727.
Haubrich WS. Proctosigmoidoscopy . In: Berk JE, ed. Gastroenterology . Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 1985:581-587.
Yao Y. Colorectal cancer detection with the 60-cm flexible sigmoidoscopy in a solo general internist's office . J Am Geriatr Soc. 1988;36:914-918.
Lehman GA, Buchner DM, Lappas JC. Anatomical extent of fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy . Gastroenterology . 1983;84:803-808.
Madigan MR, Halls JM. The extent of sigmoidoscopy shown on radiographs with special reference to the rectosigmoid junction . Gut.
1968;9:355-362.Link to Article
Winnan G, Berci G, Panish J, Talbot TM, Overholt BF, McCallum RW. Superiority of the flexible to the rigid sigmoidoscopy in routine proctosigmoidoscopy . N Engl J Med.
1980;302:1011-1012.Link to Article
Crespi M, Weissman GS, Gilbertsen VA, Winawer SJ, Sherlock P. The role of proctosigmoidoscopy in screening for colorectal neoplasia . CA . 1984;34:158-166.
Leicester RJ, Pollett WG, Hawley PR, Nicholls RJ. Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy as an outpatient procedure . Lancet
. 1982;2:34-35.Link to Article
Marks G, Boggs HW, Castro AF, Gathright JB, Ray JE, Savati E. Sigmoidoscopic examination with rigid and flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopies in the surgeon's office: a comparative prospective study of effectiveness in 1012 cases . Dis Colon Rectum
. 1979;22:162-168.Link to Article
Bohlman TW, Katon RM, Lipshutz GR, et al. Fiberoptic pansigmoidoscopy: an evaluation and comparison with rigid sigmoidoscopy . Gastroenterology . 1977;72:644-649.
Hilsabeck JR. Experience with routine office sigmoidoscopy using the 60cm flexible colonoscope in private practice . Dis Colon Rectum
. 1983;26:314318.Link to Article
Gardner MJ. Flexible sigmoidoscopy in the primary care setting . Primary Care . 1986;13:543-547.
Silverberg E, Lubera JA. Cancer Stat. 1989;39:3-20.
Greene FL. Distribution of colorectal neoplasms: a left to right shift of polyps and cancer . Am Surg. 1983;49:62-65.
Gilbertsen VA. Proctosigmoidoscopy and polypectomy in reducing the incidence of rectal cancer . Cancer
. 1974;34:936-939.Link to Article
Hertz REL, Deddish MR, Day E. Value of periodic examinations in detecting cancer of the colon and rectum . Postgrad Med. 1960;27:290-294.
Friedman GD, Collen MF, Fireman BH. Multiphasic health checkup evaluation: a 16-year follow-up . J Chronic Dis.
1986;39:453-463.Link to Article
Selby JV, Friedman GD, Collen MF. Sigmoidoscopy and mortality from colorectal cancers: The Kaiser Permanente Multiphasic Evaluation Study . J Clin Epidemiol.
1988;41:427-434.Link to Article
Winawer SJ, Cummins R, Baldwin MP, Ptak A. A new flexible sigmoidoscope for the generalist . Gastrointest Endosc.
1982;28:233-236.Link to Article
McCray RS. A fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy training program for cancer screening physicians . Gastrointest Endosc.
1981;27:137.Link to Article
Weissman GS, Winawer SJ, Baldwin MP, et al. Multicenter evaluation of training non-endoscopists in 30-cm flexible sigmoidoscopy . CA . 1987;37:26-29.
Dubow RA, Katon RM, Benner KG, van Dijk CM, Koval G, Smith FW. Short (35 cm) vs long (60 cm) flexible sigmoidoscopy: a comparison of findings and tolerance in asymptomatic patients screened for colorectal neoplasia . Gastrointest Endosc.
1984;31:305-308.Link to Article
Selby JV. Choice of instrument for flexible sigmoidoscopy . J Fam Pract. 1987;24:238-239.
Griffin JW. Flexible fiberoptic sigmoidoscopy—longer may not be better for the 'nonendoscopist.' Gastrointest Endosc.
1985;31:347-348.Link to Article
Rumans MC, Benner KG, Keeffe EB. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy by primary care physicians: effectiveness and costs in patients negative for fecal occult blood . Western J Med. 1986;144:756-758.
Rodney WM, Albers G. Flexible sigmoidoscopy outcomes following two types of continuing medical education . Am J Gastroenterol. 1986;81:133-137.
Rodney WM. Flexible sigmoidoscopy and the despecialization of endoscopy . J Fam Pract. 1986;23:279-280.
American Cancer Society. Survey of physicians' attitudes and practices in early cancer detection . Cancer . 1985;35:197-213.
Frame PS. Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy: is it worthwhile? An opposing view . J Fam Pract. 1987;25:601-607.
Selby JV, Friedman GD. Sigmoidoscopy in the periodic health examination of asymptomatic adults . JAMA
. 1989;261:594-601. US Preventive Services Task Force.Link to Article