ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Appropriateness of colonoscopies in a Tunisian endoscopy center: factors and EPAGE-I/II criteria comparison.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a growing demand for colonoscopy, worldwide, resulting in increased rate of inappropriate referrals. This "overuse" of colonoscopies has become a major burden for health care.
objectivesto assess the appropriateness of colonoscopies performed at the endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Sousse and to compare these results of appropriateness according to the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) I and EPAGE II criteria. PATIENTS AND
methodsthis cross-sectional study included all consecutive patients referred for a diagnostic colonoscopy, between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients referred for exclusively therapeutic indications, those with incomplete colonoscopies were not included. Patients with poor bowel preparation or missing data were also excluded. Indications were assessed using the EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria.
resultsFrom 1972 consecutive patients, 1307 were included. Overall, 986 (75.4%) of all referrals were for out-patients. The majority of patients were referred by gastroenterologists (n = 1026 patients; 78.5%), followed by general surgeons (n = 85; 6.5%). The commonest indications were lower abdominal symptoms (275; 21%) followed by uncomplicated diarrhea (152; 11.6%). Relevant findings were present in 363 patients (27.7%). Neoplastic lesions were the dominant finding in 221 patients (16.9%). EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria were applicable for 1237 (88.8%) and 1276 (97.7%) patients respectively. Hematochezia and abdominal pain recorded the highest inappropriate rates with both sets of criteria. Appropriate colonoscopies increased to 76.4% when EPAGE II criteria were applied; whereas uncertain and inappropriate procedures decreased to 10.3% and 10.9% respectively Appropriateness of indication was significantly higher in hospitalized patients. For the EPAGE II criteria, the specialty of the referring physician was also significantly associated to the appropriate use. The agreement between EPAGE I and EPAGE II criteria was slight using the weighted version of k (k = 0.153).
conclusionsThe updated and improved EPAGE II guidelines are a simple and valid tool for assessing the appropriateness of colonoscopies. They decreased the inappropriate rate and the possibility of missing potentially severe diagnoses.
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.