Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: A prospective study

Endoscopy

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 32-37

  Gimeno Garcia A Z ^a   Gonzalez Y ^a   Quintero, E ^a   Nicolas Perez D ^a   Adrian Z ^a   Romero, R ^a   Alarcn Fernandez O ^a   Hernandez M ^a   Carrillo, M ^a   Felipe, V ^a   Diaz J ^a   Ramos, L ^a   Moreno, M ^a   Jimenez Sosa A ^a  

^a HOSPITAL UNIVERSITARIO DE CANARIAS   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; DIGESTIVE TRACT INTUBATION; FEMALE; GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTPATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE;

AGED; CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COLONOSCOPY; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FALSE NEGATIVE REACTIONS; FALSE POSITIVE REACTIONS; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; UNNECESSARY PROCEDURES;

EID: 84455208129     PISSN: 0013726X     EISSN: 14388812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1291386     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Cohen LB, Wecsler JS, Gaetano JN et al. Endoscopic sedation in the United States: results from a nationwide survey. Am J Gastroenterol: 2006; 101 967 974 (Pubitemid 43725309)
2. Sonnenberg A, Amorosi SL, Lacey MJ et al. Patterns of endoscopy in the United States: analysis of data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Endoscopic Database. Gastrointest Endosc: 2008; 67 489 496
3. Fernandez-Esparrach G, Gimeno-Garcia AZ, Llach J et al. [Guidelines for the rational use of endoscopy to improve the detection of relevant lesions in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study]. Med Clin (Barc): 2007; 129 205 208 (Pubitemid 47394684)
4. Levin TR. Colonoscopy capacity: Can we build it? Will they come? Gastroenterology: 2004; 127 1841 1844 (Pubitemid 39575863)
5. Seeff LC, Manninen DL, Dong FB et al. Is there endoscopic capacity to provide colorectal cancer screening to the unscreened population in the United States? Gastroenterology: 2004; 127 1661 1669 (Pubitemid 39575844)
6. Rodriguez-Moranta F, Trapero-Bertran M, Castells A et al. Endoscopic requirements of colorectal cancer screening programs in average-risk population. Estimation according to a Markov model. Gastroenterol Hepatol: 2008; 31 405 412
7. Balaguer F, Llach J, Castells A et al. The European panel on the appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy guidelines colonoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit: a prospective study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther: 2005; 21 609 613 (Pubitemid 40381512)
8. Burnand B, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V et al. Use, appropriateness, and diagnostic yield of screening colonoscopy: an international observational study (EPAGE). Gastrointest Endosc: 2006; 63 1018 1026 (Pubitemid 43792430)
9. Gonvers JJ, Harris JK, Wietlisbach V et al. A European view of diagnostic yield and appropriateness of colonoscopy. Hepatogastroenterology: 2007; 54 729 735 (Pubitemid 46903711)
10. Vader JP, Froehlich F, Dubois RW et al. European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE): conclusion and WWW site. Endoscopy: 1999; 31 687 694 (Pubitemid 29500523)
11. Juillerat P, Peytremann-Bridevaux I, Vader JP et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications. Endoscopy: 2009; 41 240 246
12. Parra-Blanco A, Nicolas-Perez D, Gimeno-Garcia A et al. The timing of bowel preparation before colonoscopy determines the quality of cleansing, and is a significant factor contributing to the detection of flat lesions: a randomized study. World J Gastroenterol: 2006; 12 6161 6166 (Pubitemid 44688165)
13. Froehlich F, Pache I, Burnand B et al. Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study. Gastrointest Endosc: 1998; 48 128 136 (Pubitemid 28387457)
14. Kmieciak Le Corguille M, Gaudric M, Sogni P et al. [Appropiateness of colonoscopy in a gastrointestinal unit in 2001: a prospective study using criteria established by a European panel of experts]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol: 2003; 27 213 218 (Pubitemid 36343149)
15. Terraz O, Wietlisbach V, Jeannot JG et al. The EPAGE internet guideline as a decision support tool for determining the appropriateness of colonoscopy. Digestion: 2005; 71 72 77 (Pubitemid 40674574)
16. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. Gastroenterology: 2008; 134 1570 1595 (Pubitemid 351615355)
17. Arditi C, Gonvers JJ, Burnand B et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer. Endoscopy: 2009; 41 209 217
18. Grassini M, Verna C, Battaglia E et al. Education improves colonoscopy appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc: 2008; 67 88 93 (Pubitemid 350278592)
19. Grassini M, Verna C, Niola P et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: diagnostic yield and safety in guidelines. World J Gastroenterol: 2007; 13 1816 1819 (Pubitemid 46706014)
20. Vader JP, Froehlich F, Burnand B et al. ASGE versus EPAGE versus diagnostic yield: a level playing field, please! Am J Gastroenterol: 2005; 100 1892 1892
21. Sanchez-de lRio A, Quintero E, Alarcon O. [Appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in open-access endoscopy units]. Gastroenterol Hepatol: 2004; 27 119 124 (Pubitemid 38404899)
22. Morini S, Hassan C, Meucci G et al. Diagnostic yield of open access colonoscopy according to appropriateness. Gastrointest Endosc: 2001; 54 175 179
23. Suriani R, Rizzetto M, Mazzucco D et al. Appropriateness of colonoscopy in a digestive endoscopy unit: a prospective study using ASGE guidelines. J Eval Clin Pract: 2009; 15 41 45