Literature DB >> 19280536

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.

P Juillerat1, I Peytremann-Bridevaux, J-P Vader, C Arditi, S Schusselé Filliettaz, R W Dubois, J-J Gonvers, F Froehlich, B Burnand, V Pittet.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications.
METHODS: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory).
RESULTS: Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively
CONCLUSIONS: The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19280536     DOI: 10.1055/s-0028-1119643

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  17 in total

Review 1.  Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Authors:  Antonio Z Gimeno-García; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2015-02-16

Review 2.  Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Michal F Kaminski; Siwan Thomas-Gibson; Marek Bugajski; Michael Bretthauer; Colin J Rees; Evelien Dekker; Geir Hoff; Rodrigo Jover; Stepan Suchanek; Monika Ferlitsch; John Anderson; Thomas Roesch; Rolf Hultcranz; Istvan Racz; Ernst J Kuipers; Kjetil Garborg; James E East; Maciej Rupinski; Birgitte Seip; Cathy Bennett; Carlo Senore; Silvia Minozzi; Raf Bisschops; Dirk Domagk; Roland Valori; Cristiano Spada; Cesare Hassan; Mario Dinis-Ribeiro; Matthew D Rutter
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2017-03-16       Impact factor: 4.623

3.  Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study.

Authors:  A Z Gimeno García; Y González; E Quintero; D Nicolás-Pérez; Z Adrián; R Romero; O Alarcón Fernández; M Hernández; M Carrillo; V Felipe; J Díaz; L Ramos; M Moreno; A Jiménez-Sosa
Journal:  Endoscopy       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 10.093

Review 4.  Colorectal cancer diagnosis: Pitfalls and opportunities.

Authors:  Pablo Vega; Fátima Valentín; Joaquín Cubiella
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2015-12-15

5.  Colonoscopy outcome in North of Iran (Guilan): 2006-2009.

Authors:  Farahnaz Joukar; Sohre Kaiidi Majd; Arezoo Fani; Nima Nazari; Fariborz Mansour-Ghanaei
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Med       Date:  2012-08-22

6.  Identification of MST1/STK4 and SULF1 proteins as autoantibody targets for the diagnosis of colorectal cancer by using phage microarrays.

Authors:  Ingrid Babel; Rodrigo Barderas; Ramón Diaz-Uriarte; Víctor Moreno; Adolfo Suarez; María Jesús Fernandez-Aceñero; Ramón Salazar; Gabriel Capellá; J Ignacio Casal
Journal:  Mol Cell Proteomics       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 5.911

7.  Analysis of colonoscopic perforations at a local clinic and a tertiary hospital.

Authors:  Toshihiko Sagawa; Satoru Kakizaki; Haruhisa Iizuka; Yasuhiro Onozato; Naondo Sohara; Shinichi Okamura; Masatomo Mori
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-09-21       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Emergency cases following elective colonoscopy: Iatrogenic colonic perforation.

Authors:  Ebubekir Gündeş; Hüseyin Çiyiltepe; Ulaş Aday; Durmuş Ali Çetin; Aziz Serkan Senger; Orhan Uzun; Kamuran Cumhur Değer; Mustafa Duman; Erdal Polat
Journal:  Turk J Surg       Date:  2017-12-01

9.  Appropriateness of Endoscopic Procedures: A Prospective, Multicenter Study.

Authors:  Carina Leal; Nuno Almeida; Maria Silva; Antonieta Santos; Helena Vasconcelos; Pedro Figueiredo
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-05-25

10.  A cross-sectional study of the appropriateness of colonoscopy requests in the Spanish region of Catalonia.

Authors:  Diana Puente; Francesc Xavier Cantero; Maria Llagostera; Pilar Piñeiro; Raquel Nieto; Rosa Saladich; Juanjo Mascort; Mercè Marzo; Jesús Almeda; Manel Segarra
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.