Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33104846›Full record

GuidelineEuropean radiology2021

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.

Cristiano Spada, Cesare Hassan, Davide Bellini, David Burling, Giovanni Cappello, Cristina Carretero, Evelien Dekker, Rami Eliakim, Margriet de Haan, Michal F Kaminski and 18 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReviewPractice Guideline
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

28 authors at 20 institutions in 9 countries.

Cristiano SpadaDigestive Endoscopy Unit and Gastronenterology, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy. cristianospada@gmail.com.
Cesare HassanGastroenterology Unit, Nuovo Regina Margherita Hospital, Rome, Italy.
Davide BelliniDepartment of Radiological Sciences, Oncology and Pathology, Diagnostic Imaging Unit, La Sapienza University of Rome, I.C.O.T. Hospital, Latina, Italy.
David BurlingSt. Mark's Hospital, Harrow, London, UK.
Giovanni CappelloRadiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Cristina CarreteroDepartment of Gastroenterology, University of Navarre Clinic, Healthcare Research Institute of Navarre, Pamplona, Spain.
Evelien DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Amsterdam University Medical Center location AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Rami EliakimDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sheba Medical Center, Sackler School of Medicine, Tel-Aviv, Israel.
Margriet de HaanDepartment of Radiology, University Medical Center, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Michal F KaminskiDepartments of Gastroenterological Oncology and Cancer Prevention, The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland.
Anastasios KoulaouzidisEndoscopy Unit, Centre for Liver and Digestive Disorders, University Hospitals, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.
Andrea LaghiDepartment of Surgical-Medical Sciences and Translational Medicine, La Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Philippe LefereDepartment of Radiology, Stedelijk Ziekenhuis, Roeselare, Belgium.
Thomas MangDepartment of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sebastian Manuel MilluzzoDigestive Endoscopy Unit and Gastronenterology, Fondazione Poliambulanza, Brescia, Italy.
Martina MorrinRCSI Radiology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
Deirdre McNamaraTAGG Research Centre, Department of Clinical Medicine, Trinity Centre, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Emanuele NeriDiagnostic Radiology 3, Department of Translational Research, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Silvia PecereDepartment of Gastroenterology, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Mathieu PiocheEndoscopy and Gastroenterology Unit, Edouard Herriot Hospital, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Andrew PlumbCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Emanuele RondonottiGastroenterology Unit, Ospedale Valduce, Como, Italy.
Manon Cw SpaanderDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Stuart TaylorCentre for Medical Imaging, University College London, London, UK.
Ignacio Fernandez-UrienGastroenterology, Hospital de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Jeanin E van HooftDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jaap StokerRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Daniele ReggeRadiology Unit, Candiolo Cancer Institute, FPO-IRCCS, Candiolo, Turin, Italy.
Amsterdam University Medical Centers · NLIstituti di Ricovero e Cura a Carattere Scientifico · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity College London · GBCandiolo Cancer Institute · ITErasmus MC · NLFondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero · ITHospices Civils de Lyon · FRLeiden University Medical Center · NLMedical University of Vienna · ATNavarre Institute of Health Research · ESNHS Lothian · GBOspedale Regina Margherita · ITOspedale Valduce · ITRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IESheba Medical Center · ILSt Mark's Hospital · GBTallaght University Hospital · IEThe Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology · PLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

main recommendations1. 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 unfeasible. Weak 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. Source and scope This is an update of the 2014-15 Guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of imaging alternatives to standard colonoscopy. A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) or colon capsule endoscopy (CCE). The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence.

Indexed as

Colonography, Computed TomographicColorectal NeoplasmsRadiologyColonoscopyEndoscopy, GastrointestinalHumans

Identifiers

PMID33104846
OpenAlexW3093929629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.