Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.

TitleAppropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.
Publication TypeJournal Article
Year of Publication2009
AuthorsJuillerat, P, Peytremann-Bridevaux, I, Vader, J-P, Arditi, C, S Filliettaz, S, Dubois, RW, Gonvers, J-J, Froehlich, F, Burnand, B, Pittet, V
JournalEndoscopy
Volume41
Issue3
Pagination240-6
Date Published2009 Mar
DOI10.1055/s-0028-1119643
ISSN1438-8812
KeywordsColonoscopy, Europe, Humans, Treatment Outcome
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

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.

Alternate URL

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19280536?dopt=Abstract

Alternate JournalEndoscopy
Citation Key / SERVAL ID2743
PubMed ID19280536

                         

IUMSP | www.iumsp.ch
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine
Route de la Corniche 10, 1010 Lausanne - Switzerland
+41 21 314 72 72 | dess.info@unisante.ch

Go to top