Data Entry: Please note that the research database will be replaced by UNIverse by the end of October 2023. Please enter your data into the system https://universe-intern.unibas.ch. Thanks

Login for users with Unibas email account...

Login for registered users without Unibas email account...

 
Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications
JournalItem (Reviews, Editorials, Rezensionen, Urteilsanmerkungen etc. in einer wissenschaftlichen Zeitschrift)
 
ID 1197421
Author(s) Juillerat, P; Peytremann-Bridevaux, I; Vader, J-P; Arditi, C; Schusselé Filliettaz, S; Dubois, R W; Gonvers, J-J; Froehlich, F; Burnand, B; Pittet, V
Author(s) at UniBasel Froehlich, Florian
Year 2009
Title Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications
Journal Endoscopy
Volume 41
Number 3
Pages 240-6
Abstract BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications. METHODS:The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory). RESULTS: Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively CONCLUSIONS: The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.
Publisher Georg Thieme
ISSN/ISBN 0013-726X
edoc-URL http://edoc.unibas.ch/dok/A6007576
Full Text on edoc No
Digital Object Identifier DOI 10.1055/s-0028-1119643
PubMed ID http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19280536
ISI-Number WOS:000264658400008
Document type (ISI) Journal Article, Review
 
   

MCSS v5.8 PRO. 0.323 sec, queries - 0.000 sec ©Universität Basel  |  Impressum   |    
19/04/2024