ArticleGastroenterologia y hepatologia2022
The EPAGE guidelines are not an effective strategy for managing colonoscopies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Gastroenterologia y hepatologia, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quantitative faecal immunochemical tests to guide colorectal cancer pathway referral in primary care. A systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has had a serious impact on the functioning of gastrointestinal endoscopy Units. The Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG) and the Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED) have proposed the EPAGE guidelines for managing postponed colonoscopies.
objectiveTo evaluate the EPAGE guidelines as a management tool compared to the immunologic faecal occult blood test (iFOBT) and compared to risk score (RS) that combines age, sex and the iFOBT for the detection of colorectal cancer (CRC) and significant bowel disease (SBD).
methodsA prospective, single-centre study enrolling 743 symptomatic patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy. Each order was classified according to the EPAGE guidelines as appropriate, indeterminate or inappropriate. Patients underwent an iFOBT and had their RS calculated.
resultsThe iFOBT (p<0.001), but not the EPAGE guidelines (p = 0.742), was an independent predictive factor of risk of CRC. The ROC AUCs for the EPAGE guidelines, the iFOBT and the RS were 0.61 (95% CI 0.49-0.75), 0.95 (0.93-0.97) and 0.90 (0.87-0.93) for CRC, and 0.55 (0.49-0.61), 0.75 (0.69-0.813) and 0.78 (0.73-0.83) for SBD, respectively. The numbers of colonoscopies needed to detect a case of CRC and a case of SBD were 38 and seven for the EPAGE guidelines, seven and two for the iFOBT, and 19 and four for a RS ≥5 points, respectively.
conclusionThe EPAGE guidelines, unlike the iFOBT, is not suitable for screening candidate patients for a diagnostic colonoscopy to detect CRC. The iFOBT, in combination with age and sex, is the most suitable strategy for managing demand for endoscopy in a restricted-access situation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.