Exact(1)
In comparison, significantly more participants, 23% (38/166), perceived the optical colonoscopy examination as severely or extremely burdensome (p < 0.001).
Similar(59)
Diarrhoea was more burdensome compared with abdominal pain (p = 0.015) and flatulence (p < 0.001), while abdominal pain was more burdensome than flatulence (p = 0.049).
For a 29 year old earning $30-50,000/year 30-50,000/yearo for burdensome healthecare was 2.48 (p < 0.001) coddsratioo those earning more than $50,000/year.
Pretest, 57% of participants (90/159) were more reluctant to undergo the optical colonoscopy procedure than the cathartic preparation; post-test, 67% (111/165) actually considered the optical colonoscopy preparation more burdensome than optical colonoscopy itself (p < 0.001).
Nonetheless, the total burden was significantly lower for the CTC preparation than for colonoscopy (9% rated the CTC preparation as severely or extremely burdensome compared with 59% for colonoscopy; p < 0.001).
Likewise, a burdensome optical colonoscopy preparation (odds ratio 0.40; p = 0.05) and pain at optical colonoscopy (odds ratio 0.10; p = 0.01) were associated with a preference for CT colonography.
With alfentanil fewer patients rated the insufflation as most burdensome aspect (56.1% vs. 18.6%; P = 0.001).
With regard to participants' experience parameters, a burdensome bowel preparation for CT colonography (odds ratio 6.06; p = 0.01) and a painful CT colonography procedure (odds ratio 6.34; p = 0.03) were independent determinants of optical colonoscopy preference.
In group 1, 8% (4/50) rated the CT colonography bowel preparation as extremely burdensome compared with 2% (1/49) in group 2 (p = 0.388).
In group 1, 26% (13/50) rated the diarrhoea as extremely burdensome compared with 15% (7/47) in group 2 (p = 0.049; see Fig. 5 for discomfort scores of diarrhoea).
For a 29 year old, the odds ratio for burdensome health care costs associated with poor health was 2.31 (p < 0.001).
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com