Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39615897›Full record

GuidelineBMJ open gastroenterology2024

Update from 2010 (standard operating procedure): protocol for the 2024 British Society of Gastroenterology Guidelines on colorectal surveillance in inflammatory bowel disease.

Morris Gordon, Gaurav Bhaskar Nigam, Vassiliki Sinopoulou, Ibrahim Al Bakir, Adrian C Bateman, Shahida Din, Sunil Dolwani, Anjan Dhar, O D Faiz, Bu Hayee and 18 more

Abstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
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.

Morris GordonBEST unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK MGordon@uclan.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1216-5158
Gaurav Bhaskar NigamUniversity of Oxford Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4699-2263
Vassiliki SinopoulouUniversity of Central Lancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2831-9406
Ibrahim Al BakirGastroenterology Department, Chelsea and Westminster Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8775-3459
Adrian C BatemanCellular Pathology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2222-4104
Shahida DinGastroenterology, NHS Lothian, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2855-3400
Sunil DolwaniGastroenterology, Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.
Anjan DharGastroenterology, County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, Darlington, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8964-2031
O D FaizDepartment of Surgery and Cancer or Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Bu HayeeKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1670-8815
Chris HealeyGastroenterology, Airedale NHS Foundation Trust, Keighley, UK.
Christopher Andrew LambTranslational and Clinical Research Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7271-4956
Simon LeedhamUniversity of Oxford Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Misha KabirUniversity College London, London, UK.
Marietta IacucciUniversity College Cork, Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Ailsa HartSt Mark's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7141-6076
A John MorrisGastroenterology, Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Marco NovelliDepartment of Histopathology, University College London, London, UK.
Tim RaineCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Matt RutterUniversity Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
Neil A ShepherdGloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, UK.
Venkataraman SubramanianGastroenterology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK.
Nigel J TrudgillDepartment of Gastroenterology, Sandwell and West Birmingham Hospitals NHS Trust, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8040-8158
Maggie VanceSt Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute, London, London, UK.
Ana WilsonSt Mark's Hospital and Academic Institute, London, London, UK.
Lydia WhiteNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford, UK.
Ruth WakemanCrohn's & Colitis UK, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, UK.
James E EastNuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe evolving landscape of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) necessitates refining colonoscopic surveillance guidelines. This study outlines methodology adopted by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Guideline Development Group (GDG) for updating IBD colorectal surveillance guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) approach, as outlined in the GRADE handbook, was employed. Thematic questions were formulated using either the 'patient, intervention, comparison and outcome' format or the 'current state of knowledge, area of interest, potential impact and suggestions from experts in the field' format. The evidence review process included systematic reviews assessed using appropriate appraisal tools. An extensive list of potential outcomes was compiled from literature and expert consultations and then ranked by GDG members. The top outcomes were identified for evidence synthesis in three key areas: utility of surveillance in IBD, quality of bowel preparation and use of advanced imaging techniques in colonoscopy for IBD. Risk thresholding exercises determined specific risk levels for different surveillance strategies and intervals. This approach enabled the GDG to establish precise thresholds for interventions based on relative and absolute risk assessments, directly informing the stratification of surveillance recommendations. Significance of effect sizes (small, moderate, large) will guide the final GRADE assessment of the evidence. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not applicable. By integrating clinical expertise, patient experiences and innovative methodologies like risk thresholding, we aim to deliver actionable recommendations for IBD colorectal surveillance. This protocol, complementing the main guidelines, offers GDGs, clinical trialists and practitioners a framework to inform future research and enhance patient care and outcomes.

Indexed as

ColonoscopyGastroenterologyInflammatory Bowel DiseasesColorectal NeoplasmsHumansRisk AssessmentSocieties, MedicalUnited KingdomCOLORECTAL CANCERDYSPLASIAINFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASESURVEILLANCE

Identifiers

PMID39615897
PMCPMC11624704

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.