Literature DB >> 22109649

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

A Z Gimeno García1, 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.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE I) criteria were recently updated (EPAGE II), but no prospective studies have used these criteria in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to validate the EPAGE II criteria in an open-access endoscopy unit. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted in an open-access endoscopy unit at a tertiary care referral center. Consecutive outpatients (n = 1004; mean age 58.9 ± 13.1 years; 45 % men) were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy between September 2009 and February 2010. The appropriateness of colonoscopy was assessed based on EPAGE II criteria, and the relationship between appropriateness and both referral doctor and detection of significant lesions was examined. The effectiveness of EPAGE II criteria in assessing appropriateness was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting significant lesions.
RESULTS: Colonoscopic cecal intubation was achieved in 956 patients (95.2 %). Most referral doctors were gastroenterologists (58.0 %) and the most common indication was colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (35.2 %). EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 968 patients (96.4 %); of these patients, the indication was appropriate in 778 (80.4 %), inappropriate in 102 (10.5 %), and uncertain in 88 (9.1 %). Patients with appropriate or uncertain indications based on EPAGE II criteria had more relevant endoscopic findings than those with inappropriate indications (38.8 % vs. 24.5 %; OR 1.95, 95 %CI 1.22 - 3.13; P < 0.005). Sensitivity and negative predictive value of EPAGE II criteria for detecting significant lesions were 93.1 % (95 %CI 90 % - 96 %) and 75.5 % (95 %CI 67 % - 84 %), respectively, whereas for advanced neoplastic lesions these values were 98.0 % (95 %CI 95 % - 100 %) and 98.0 % (95 % CI 95 % - 100 %), respectively. Adherence to EPAGE II recommendations was an independent predictor of finding a significant lesion (OR 1.93, 95 %CI 1.20 - 3.11; P = 0.007).
CONCLUSIONS: EPAGE II is a simple, valid score for detecting inappropriate colonoscopies in clinical practice. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22109649      PMCID: PMC4086891          DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291386

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


  23 in total

1.  The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Olivier Terraz; Vincent Wietlisbach; Jean-Gabriel Jeannot; Bernard Burnand; Florian Froehlich; Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Jennifer K Harris; John-Paul Vader
Journal:  Digestion       Date:  2005-03-16       Impact factor: 3.216

2.  ASGE versus EPAGE versus diagnostic yield: a level playing field, please!

Authors:  John-Paul Vader; Florin Froehlich; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Jacques Gonvers
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Use, appropriateness, and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE).

Authors:  Bernard Burnand; Jennifer K Harris; Vincent Wietlisbach; Florian Froehlich; John-Paul Vader; Jean-Jacques Gonvers
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 9.427

4.  Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey.

Authors:  Lawrence B Cohen; Julie S Wecsler; John N Gaetano; Ariel A Benson; Kenneth M Miller; Valerie Durkalski; James Aisenberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 10.864

5.  The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study.

Authors:  Adolfo Parra-Blanco; David Nicolas-Perez; Antonio Gimeno-Garcia; Begona Grosso; Alejandro Jimenez; Juan Ortega; Enrique Quintero
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study.

Authors:  F Balaguer; J Llach; A Castells; J M Bordas; M Ppellisé; F Rodríguez-Moranta; A Mata; G Fernández-Esparrach; A Ginès; J M Piqué
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 8.171

7.  Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States?

Authors:  Laura C Seeff; Diane L Manninen; Fred B Dong; Sajal K Chattopadhyay; Marion R Nadel; Florence K L Tangka; Noelle-Angelique M Molinari
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 22.682

8.  Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study.

Authors:  F Froehlich; I Pache; B Burnand; J P Vader; M Fried; C Beglinger; G Stalder; K Gyr; J Thorens; C Schneider; J Kosecoff; M Kolodny; R W DuBois; J J Gonvers; R H Brook
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 9.427

9.  A European view of diagnostic yield and appropriateness of colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jean-Jacques Gonvers; Jennifer K Harris; Vincent Wietlisbach; Bernard Burnand; John-Paul Vader; Florian Froehlich
Journal:  Hepatogastroenterology       Date:  2007 Apr-May

10.  Appropriateness of colonoscopy: diagnostic yield and safety in guidelines.

Authors:  Mario Grassini; Carlo Verna; Paolo Niola; Monica Navino; Edda Battaglia; Gabrio Bassotti
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 5.742

View more
  15 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

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer diagnosis: Pitfalls and opportunities.

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

4.  Direct access cancer testing in primary care: a systematic review of use and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Claire Friedemann Smith; Alice C Tompson; Nicholas Jones; Josh Brewin; Elizabeth A Spencer; Clare R Bankhead; Fd Richard Hobbs; Brian D Nicholson
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2018-08-13       Impact factor: 5.386

5.  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

6.  Diagnostic yield of endoscopy in patients with abdominal complaints: incremental value of faecal calprotectin on guidelines of appropriateness.

Authors:  Emanuel Burri; Michael Manz; Patricia Schroeder; Florian Froehlich; Livio Rossi; Christoph Beglinger; Frank Serge Lehmann
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-03-29       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Information seeking and anxiety among colonoscopy-naïve adults: Direct-to-colonoscopy vs traditional consult-first pathways.

Authors:  Jocelyn A Silvester; Harmandeep Kalkat; Lesley A Graff; John R Walker; Harminder Singh; Donald R Duerksen
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2016-11-16

8.  Simple feedback of colonoscopy performance improved the number of adenomas per colonoscopy and serrated polyp detection rate.

Authors:  Osamu Toyoshima; Shuntaro Yoshida; Toshihiro Nishizawa; Tadahiro Yamakawa; Toru Arano; Yoshihiro Isomura; Takamitsu Kanazawa; Hidehiko Ando; Yosuke Tsuji; Kazuhiko Koike
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-06-17

9.  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

10.  Appropriateness of colonoscopy requests according to EPAGE-II in the Spanish region of Catalonia.

Authors:  M Marzo-Castillejo; J Almeda; J J Mascort; O Cunillera; R Saladich; R Nieto; P Piñeiro; M Llagostera; Fx Cantero; M Segarra; D Puente
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2015-10-26       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.