scholarly journals Imaging alternatives to colonoscopy: CT colonography and colon capsule. European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline – Update 2020

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (12) ◽  
pp. 1127-1141
Author(s):  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Davide Bellini ◽  
David Burling ◽  
Giovanni Cappello ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
European Society ◽  
Patient Choice ◽  
Insufficient Evidence ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Colon Capsule ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. The timing depends on an interdisciplinary decision including endoscopic and radiological factors.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR suggests that, in centers with expertise in and availability of colon capsule endoscopy (CCE), CCE preferably the same or the next day may be considered if colonoscopy is incomplete.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 3 When colonoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.Because of lack of direct evidence, ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CCE in this situation.Very low quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable alternative to colonoscopy for patients with non-alarm symptoms.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.In centers with availability, ESGE/ESGAR suggests that CCE may be considered in patients with non-alarm symptoms.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 Where there is no organized fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based population colorectal screening program, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an option for colorectal cancer screening, providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks, and depending on local service- and patient-related factors.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR do not suggest CCE as a first-line screening test for colorectal cancer.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 5 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC in the case of a positive fecal occult blood test (FOBT) or FIT with incomplete or unfeasible colonoscopy, within organized population screening programs.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE/ESGAR also suggest the use of CCE in this setting based on availability.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC with intravenous contrast medium injection for surveillance after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer only in patients in whom colonoscopy is contraindicated or unfeasibleWeak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in this setting.Very low quality evidence. 7 ESGE/ESGAR suggest CTC in patients with high risk polyps undergoing surveillance after polypectomy only when colonoscopy is unfeasible.Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.There is insufficient evidence to recommend CCE in post-polypectomy surveillance.Very low quality evidence. 8 ESGE/ESGAR recommend against CTC in patients with acute colonic inflammation and in those who have recently undergone colorectal surgery, pending a multidisciplinary evaluation.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm detected at CTC or CCE.Follow-up CTC may be clinically considered for 6 – 9-mm CTC-detected lesions if patients do not undergo polypectomy because of patient choice, comorbidity, and/or low risk profile for advanced neoplasia.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

scholarly journals Endoscopic diagnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (NVUGIH): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021

Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 53 (03) ◽  
pp. 300-332
Author(s):  
Ian M. Gralnek ◽  
Adrian J. Stanley ◽  
A. John Morris ◽  
Marine Camus ◽  
James Lau ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Dose ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Peptic Ulcer Hemorrhage ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Epinephrine Injection ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Mechanical Therapy ◽  
Upper Gastrointestinal ◽  
Quality Evidence

MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS 1 ESGE recommends in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage (UGIH) the use of the Glasgow–Blatchford Score (GBS) for pre-endoscopy risk stratification. Patients with GBS ≤ 1 are at very low risk of rebleeding, mortality within 30 days, or needing hospital-based intervention and can be safely managed as outpatients with outpatient endoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends that in patients with acute UGIH who are taking low-dose aspirin as monotherapy for secondary cardiovascular prophylaxis, aspirin should not be interrupted. If for any reason it is interrupted, aspirin should be re-started as soon as possible, preferably within 3–5 days.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends that following hemodynamic resuscitation, early (≤ 24 hours) upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy should be performed. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend urgent (≤ 12 hours) upper GI endoscopy since as compared to early endoscopy, patient outcomes are not improved. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends for patients with actively bleeding ulcers (FIa, FIb), combination therapy using epinephrine injection plus a second hemostasis modality (contact thermal or mechanical therapy). Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends for patients with an ulcer with a nonbleeding visible vessel (FIIa), contact or noncontact thermal therapy, mechanical therapy, or injection of a sclerosing agent, each as monotherapy or in combination with epinephrine injection. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that in patients with persistent bleeding refractory to standard hemostasis modalities, the use of a topical hemostatic spray/powder or cap-mounted clip should be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends that for patients with clinical evidence of recurrent peptic ulcer hemorrhage, use of a cap-mounted clip should be considered. In the case of failure of this second attempt at endoscopic hemostasis, transcatheter angiographic embolization (TAE) should be considered. Surgery is indicated when TAE is not locally available or after failed TAE. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends high dose proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy for patients who receive endoscopic hemostasis and for patients with FIIb ulcer stigmata (adherent clot) not treated endoscopically. (a) PPI therapy should be administered as an intravenous bolus followed by continuous infusion (e. g., 80 mg then 8 mg/hour) for 72 hours post endoscopy. (b) High dose PPI therapies given as intravenous bolus dosing (twice-daily) or in oral formulation (twice-daily) can be considered as alternative regimens.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 10 ESGE recommends that in patients who require ongoing anticoagulation therapy following acute NVUGIH (e. g., peptic ulcer hemorrhage), anticoagulation should be resumed as soon as the bleeding has been controlled, preferably within or soon after 7 days of the bleeding event, based on thromboembolic risk. The rapid onset of action of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACS), as compared to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), must be considered in this context.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence.

scholarly journals Technical aspects of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling in gastroenterology: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Guideline – March 2017

Endoscopy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (10) ◽  
pp. 989-1006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcin Polkowski ◽  
Christian Jenssen ◽  
Philip Kaye ◽  
Silvia Carrara ◽  
Pierre Deprez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Antibiotic Prophylaxis ◽  
Solid Component ◽  
Cystic Lesions ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Fine Needle ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Quality Evidence

RECOMMENDATIONSFor routine EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and lymph nodes (LNs) ESGE recommends 25G or 22G needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation); fine needle aspiration (FNA) and fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles are equally recommended (high quality evidence, strong recommendation).When the primary aim of sampling is to obtain a core tissue specimen, ESGE suggests using 19G FNA or FNB needles or 22G FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE recommends using 10-mL syringe suction for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with 25G or 22G FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and other types of needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests neutralizing residual negative pressure in the needle before withdrawing the needle from the target lesion (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend for or against using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses and LNs with FNA needles (high quality evidence, strong recommendation) and suggests using the needle stylet for EUS-guided sampling with FNB needles (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE suggests fanning the needle throughout the lesion when sampling solid masses and LNs (moderate quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE equally recommends EUS-guided sampling with or without on-site cytologic evaluation (moderate quality evidence, strong recommendation). When on-site cytologic evaluation is unavailable, ESGE suggests performance of three to four needle passes with an FNA needle or two to three passes with an FNB needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).For diagnostic sampling of pancreatic cystic lesions without a solid component, ESGE suggests emptying the cyst with a single pass of a 22G or 19G needle (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). For pancreatic cystic lesions with a solid component, ESGE suggests sampling of the solid component using the same technique as in the case of other solid lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).ESGE does not recommend antibiotic prophylaxis for EUS-guided sampling of solid masses or LNs (low quality evidence, strong recommendation), and suggests antibiotic prophylaxis with fluoroquinolones or beta-lactam antibiotics for EUS-guided sampling of cystic lesions (low quality evidence, weak recommendation). ESGE suggests that evaluation of tissue obtained by EUS-guided sampling should include histologic preparations (e. g., cell blocks and/or formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue fragments) and should not be limited to smear cytology (low quality evidence, weak recommendation).

scholarly journals Advanced imaging for detection and differentiation of colorectal neoplasia: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (12) ◽  
pp. 1155-1179 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raf Bisschops ◽  
James E. East ◽  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Yark Hazewinkel ◽  
Michał F. Kamiński ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Neoplasia ◽  
Colorectal Polyps ◽  
High Definition ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Virtual Chromoendoscopy ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main Recommendations 1 ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist’s adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4 ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (≤ 5 mm) colorectal polyps and can replace histopathological diagnosis. The optical diagnosis has to be reported using validated scales, must be adequately photodocumented, and can be performed only by experienced endoscopists who are adequately trained, as defined in the ESGE curriculum, and audited.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 5 ESGE recommends the use of high definition white-light endoscopy in combination with (virtual) chromoendoscopy to predict the presence and depth of any submucosal invasion in nonpedunculated colorectal polyps prior to any treatment. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 6 ESGE recommends the use of virtual or dye-based chromoendoscopy in addition to white-light endoscopy for the detection of residual neoplasia at a piecemeal polypectomy scar site. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests the possible incorporation of computer-aided diagnosis (detection and characterization of lesions) to colonoscopy, if acceptable and reproducible accuracy for colorectal neoplasia is demonstrated in high quality multicenter in vivo clinical studies. Possible significant risks with implementation, specifically endoscopist deskilling and over-reliance on artificial intelligence, unrepresentative training datasets, and hacking, need to be considered. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.

scholarly journals Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (08) ◽  
pp. 775-794 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
James East ◽  
Franco Radaelli ◽  
Cristiano Spada ◽  
Robert Benamouzig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bowel Preparation ◽  
High Volume ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Split Dose ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Patients At Risk ◽  
Split Dosing ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends a low fiber diet on the day preceding colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of enhanced instructions for bowel preparation.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE suggests adding oral simethicone to bowel preparation.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends split-dose bowel preparation for elective colonoscopy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends, for patients undergoing afternoon colonoscopy, a same-day bowel preparation as an acceptable alternative to split dosing.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence.ESGE recommends to start the last dose of bowel preparation within 5 hours of colonoscopy, and to complete it at least 2 hours before the beginning of the procedure.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.ESGE recommends the use of high volume or low volume PEG-based regimens as well as that of non-PEG-based agents that have been clinically validated for routine bowel preparation. In patients at risk for hydroelectrolyte disturbances, the choice of laxative should be individualized.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

scholarly journals Predictors of Unemployment After Breast Cancer Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (18) ◽  
pp. 1868-1879 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Wang ◽  
Brian Y. Hong ◽  
Sean A. Kennedy ◽  
Yaping Chang ◽  
Chris J. Hong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Job Demands ◽  
Cancer Surgery ◽  
Breast Cancer Surgery ◽  
Axillary Lymph ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Quality Evidence

Purpose Breast cancer surgery is associated with unemployment. Identifying high-risk patients could help inform strategies to promote return to work. We systematically reviewed observational studies to explore factors associated with unemployment after breast cancer surgery. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to identify studies that explored risk factors for unemployment after breast cancer surgery. When possible, we pooled estimates of association for all independent variables reported by more than one study. Results Twenty-six studies (46,927 patients) reported the association of 127 variables with unemployment after breast cancer surgery. Access to universal health care was associated with higher rates of unemployment (26.6% v 15.4%; test of interaction P = .05). High-quality evidence showed that unemployment after breast cancer surgery was associated with high psychological job demands (odds ratio [OR], 4.26; 95% CI, 2.27 to 7.97), childlessness (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.53), lower education level (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.25), lower income level (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.73), cancer stage II, III or IV (OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82), and mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.30). Moderate-quality evidence suggested an association with high physical job demands (OR, 2.11; 95%CI, 1.52 to 2.93), African-American ethnicity (OR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.96), and receipt of chemotherapy (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.36 to 2.79). High-quality evidence demonstrated no significant association with part-time hours, blue-collar work, tumor size, positive lymph nodes, or receipt of radiotherapy or endocrine therapy; moderate-quality evidence suggested no association with age, marital status, or axillary lymph node dissection. Conclusion Addressing high physical and psychological job demands may be important in reducing unemployment after breast cancer surgery.

scholarly journals Esophageal stenting for benign and malignant disease: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2021

Endoscopy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon C. W. Spaander ◽  
Ruben D. van der Bogt ◽  
Todd H. Baron ◽  
David Albers ◽  
Daniel Blero ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Malignant Disease ◽  
Sems Placement ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Malignant Dysphagia ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Esophageal Strictures ◽  
Refractory Benign Esophageal Strictures ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main recommendations Malignant disease 1 ESGE recommends placement of partially or fully covered self-expandable metal stents (SEMSs) for palliation of malignant dysphagia over laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, and esophageal bypass.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends brachytherapy as a valid alternative, alone or in addition to stenting, in esophageal cancer patients with malignant dysphagia and expected longer life expectancy.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends esophageal SEMS placement for sealing malignant tracheoesophageal or bronchoesophageal fistulas. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 4 ESGE does not recommend SEMS placement as a bridge to surgery or before preoperative chemoradiotherapy because it is associated with a high incidence of adverse events. Other options such as feeding tube placement are preferable. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. Benign disease 5 ESGE recommends against the use of SEMSs as first-line therapy for the management of benign esophageal strictures because of the potential for adverse events, the availability of alternative therapies, and their cost. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 6 ESGE suggests consideration of temporary placement of self-expandable stents for refractory benign esophageal strictures. Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 7 ESGE suggests that fully covered SEMSs be preferred over partially covered SEMSs for the treatment of refractory benign esophageal strictures because of their very low risk of embedment and ease of removability. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence. 8 ESGE recommends the stent-in-stent technique to remove partially covered SEMSs that are embedded in the esophageal wall. Strong recommendation, low quality evidence. 9 ESGE recommends that temporary stent placement can be considered for the treatment of leaks, fistulas, and perforations. No specific type of stent can be recommended, and the duration of stenting should be individualized. Strong recommendation, low quality of evidence. 10 ESGE recommends considering placement of a fully covered large-diameter SEMS for the treatment of esophageal variceal bleeding refractory to medical, endoscopic, and/or radiological therapy, or as initial therapy for patients with massive bleeding. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.

scholarly journals Endoscopic management of Lynch syndrome and of familial risk of colorectal cancer: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

Endoscopy ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (11) ◽  
pp. 1082-1093 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monique E. van Leerdam ◽  
Victorine H. Roos ◽  
Jeanin E. van Hooft ◽  
Francesc Balaguer ◽  
Evelien Dekker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Lynch Syndrome ◽  
Familial Risk ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Evidence Level ◽  
Colonoscopy Surveillance ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Level Of Agreement ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsESGE recommends that individuals with Lynch syndrome should be followed in dedicated units that practice monitoring of compliance and endoscopic performance measures.Strong recommendation, low quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.ESGE recommends starting colonoscopy surveillance at the age of 25 years for MLH1 and MSH2 mutation carriers and at the age of 35 years for MSH6 and PMS2 mutation carriers.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE recommends the routine use of high-definition endoscopy systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome. Strong recommendation, high quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %. ESGE suggests the use of chromoendoscopy may be of benefit in individuals with Lynch syndrome undergoing colonoscopy; however routine use must be balanced against costs, training, and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 89 %.ESGE recommends definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer as the presence of at least two first-degree relatives with colorectal cancer or at least one first-degree relative with colorectal cancer before the age of 50 years.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 92 %.ESGE recommends colonoscopy surveillance in first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients in families that fulfill the definition of familial risk of colorectal cancer.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence, level of agreement 100 %.

scholarly journals Aspirin in the Prevention of Colorectal Neoplasia

2020 ◽  
Vol 72 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Drew ◽  
Andrew T. Chan
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Potential Role ◽  
Colorectal Neoplasia ◽  
Annual Review ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
High Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Quality Evidence ◽  
Key Questions

High-quality evidence indicates that regular use of aspirin is effective in reducing the risk for precancerous colorectal neoplasia and colorectal cancer (CRC). This has led to US and international guidelines recommending aspirin for the primary prevention of CRC in specific populations. In this review, we summarize key questions that require addressing prior to broader adoption of aspirin-based chemoprevention, review recent evidence related to the benefits and harms of aspirin use among specific populations, and offer a rationale for precision prevention approaches. We specifically consider the mechanistic implications of evidence showing differences in aspirin's effects according to age, the potential role of modifiable mechanistic biomarkers for personalizing prevention, and emerging evidence that the gut microbiota may offer novel aspirin-associated preventive targets to reduce high-risk neoplasia. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Medicine, Volume 72 is January 27, 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

scholarly journals Falls efficacy instruments for community-dwelling older adults: A COSMIN-based systematic review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn Leng-Hsien Soh ◽  
Judith Lane ◽  
Tim Tianma Xu ◽  
Nigel Gleeson ◽  
Chee-Wee Tan
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Structural Validity ◽  
Balance Confidence ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
High Quality Evidence ◽  
Community Dwelling Older Adults ◽  
Quality Evidence

Abstract Background: Falls efficacy is a widely-studied latent construct in community-dwelling older adults. Various self-reported instruments have been used to measure falls efficacy. In order to be informed of the choice of the best measurement instrument for a specific purpose, empirical evidence of the development and measurement properties of falls efficacy related instruments is needed.Methods: The Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Intruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to summarise evidence on the development, content validity, and structural validity of instruments measuring falls efficacy in community-dwelling older adults. Databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsychINFO, SCOPUS, CINAHL were searched (May 2019). Records on the development of instruments and studies assessing content validity or structural validity of falls efficacy related scales were included. COSMIN methodology was used to guide the review of eligible studies and in the assessment of their methodological quality. Evidence of content validity: relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility and unidimensionality for structural validity were synthesised. A modified GRADE approach was applied to evidence synthesis.Results: 35 studies, of which 18 instruments had been identified, were included in the review. High-quality evidence showed that the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (FES)-13 items (MFES-13) has sufficient relevance, yet insufficient comprehensiveness for measuring falls efficacy. Moderate quality evidence supporting the FES-10 has sufficient relevance, and MFES-14 has sufficient comprehensibility. Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale–Simplified (ABC-15) has sufficient relevance in measuring balance confidence supported by moderate-quality evidence. Low to very low-quality evidence underpinned the content validity of other instruments. High-quality evidence supported sufficient unidimensionality for eight instruments (FES-10, MFES-14, ABC-6, ABC-15, ABC-16, Iconographical FES (Icon-FES), FES–International (FES-I) and Perceived Ability to Prevent and Manage Fall Risks (PAPMFR)). Conclusion: Content validity of instruments to measure falls efficacy is understudied. Structural validity is sufficient for a number of widely-used instruments. Measuring balance confidence is a subset of falls efficacy. Further work is needed to investigate a broader construct for falls efficacy.

scholarly journals Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2020

Endoscopy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 52 (08) ◽  
pp. 687-700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Hassan ◽  
Giulio Antonelli ◽  
Jean-Marc Dumonceau ◽  
Jaroslaw Regula ◽  
Michael Bretthauer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Complete Removal ◽  
Low Grade ◽  
Surveillance Colonoscopy ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Strong Recommendation ◽  
Weak Recommendation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Serrated Polyp ◽  
Repeat Colonoscopy ◽  
Quality Evidence

Main RecommendationsThe following recommendations for post-polypectomy colonoscopic surveillance apply to all patients who had one or more polyps that were completely removed during a high quality baseline colonoscopy. 1 ESGE recommends that patients with complete removal of 1 – 4 < 10 mm adenomas with low grade dysplasia, irrespective of villous components, or any serrated polyp < 10 mm without dysplasia, do not require endoscopic surveillance and should be returned to screening.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence.If organized screening is not available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index procedure is recommended.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 2 ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy after 3 years for patients with complete removal of at least 1 adenoma ≥ 10 mm or with high grade dysplasia, or ≥ 5 adenomas, or any serrated polyp ≥ 10 mm or with dysplasia. Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 3 ESGE recommends a 3 – 6-month early repeat colonoscopy following piecemeal endoscopic resection of polyps ≥ 20 mm.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. A first surveillance colonoscopy 12 months after the repeat colonoscopy is recommended to detect late recurrence.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 4 If no polyps requiring surveillance are detected at the first surveillance colonoscopy, ESGE suggests to perform a second surveillance colonoscopy after 5 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.After that, if no polyps requiring surveillance are detected, patients can be returned to screening. 5 ESGE suggests that, if polyps requiring surveillance are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, surveillance colonoscopy may be performed at 3 years. Weak recommendation, low quality evidence.A flowchart showing the recommended surveillance intervals is provided (Fig. 1).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document