Literature DB >> 24597781

European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II guidelines help in selecting and prioritizing patients referred to colonoscopy--a quality control study.

Sigrun Losada Eskeland1, Eirin Dalén, Jon Sponheim, Even Lind, Cathrine Brunborg, Thomas de Lange.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To use information from the referral letters to assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies in a primary open-access referral center, according to the criteria from the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II, and to compare with the first EPAGE guidelines. Second, to evaluate how the appropriateness and other patient- or doctor-related factors affected the diagnostic yield (DY).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A set of variables; symptoms, referring physician and final diagnosis, for 323 referrals accepted for colonoscopy were recorded prospectively and later on assessed using the EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria, respectively. Patients with incomplete visualization of the entire colon or colonoscopic findings as indication were excluded.
RESULTS: EPAGE and EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 287 (95.3%) and 295 (98.0%) referrals, respectively. A total of 166 (57.8%) patients were considered appropriate by EPAGE and 240 (81.4%) patients were considered appropriate by EPAGE II. DY for appropriate versus uncertain/inappropriate referrals was 34.9% versus 17.4% for EPAGE (odds ratio [OR] = 2.5, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8-4.4, p = 0.003) and 31.3% versus 10.9% for EPAGE II (OR = 3.5, 95% CI: 1.4-8.9, p = 0.007). Sensitivity was higher for EPAGE II (92.6% vs. 73.4%). According to EPAGE II, 68 (23.1%) patients were referred due to lesions identified on other diagnostic procedures, producing a DY of 39.7%. In this group, 70% presented symptoms appropriate for a primary referral to colonoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of colonoscopies were found appropriate by EPAGE II. There was a clear association between high appropriateness of the indication and a high DY. EPAGE II is a guideline-improvement that may be useful for both referring physicians and gastroenterologists when considering referrals.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24597781     DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2014.886715

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0036-5521            Impact factor:   2.423


  9 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

Review 4.  Evidence for overuse of medical services around the world.

Authors:  Shannon Brownlee; Kalipso Chalkidou; Jenny Doust; Adam G Elshaug; Paul Glasziou; Iona Heath; Somil Nagpal; Vikas Saini; Divya Srivastava; Kelsey Chalmers; Deborah Korenstein
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-01-09       Impact factor: 79.321

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.  "Appropriateness of colonoscopy according to EPAGE II in a low resource setting: a cross sectional study from Sri Lanka".

Authors:  Yasara Samarakoon; Nalika Gunawardena; Aloka Pathirana; Sumudu Hewage
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-05-29       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Faecal calprotectin to detect inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of test accuracy.

Authors:  Karoline Freeman; Brian H Willis; Hannah Fraser; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Aileen Clarke
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-03-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  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

9.  Gastrointestinal endoscopy in early diagnosis and treatment of gastrointestinal tumors.

Authors:  Chunmei Li; Lingzhi Li; Juan Shi
Journal:  Pak J Med Sci       Date:  2020 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.088

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.