Search

Background/Aims: For many therapeutic decisions in Crohn’s disease (CD), high-grade evidence is lacking. To assist clinical decision-making, explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria were developed by an international, multidisciplinary expert panel. Methods: 10 gastroenterologists, 3 surgeons and 2 general practitioners from 12 European countries assessed the appropriateness of therapy for CD using the RAND Appropriateness Method. Their assessment was based on the study of a recent literature review of the subject, combined with their own expert clinical judgment. Panelists rated clinical indications and treatment options using a 9-point scale (1 = extremely inappropriate; 9 = extremely appropriate). These scenarios were then discussed in detail at the panel meeting and re-rated. Median ratings and disagreement were used to aggregate ratings into three assessment categories: appropriate (A), uncertain (U) and inappropriate (I). Results: 569 specific indications were rated, dealing with 9 clinical presentations: mild/moderate luminal CD (n = 104), severe CD (n = 126), steroid-dependent CD (n = 25), steroid-refractory CD (n = 37), fistulizing CD (n = 49), fibrostenotic CD (n = 35), maintenance of medical remission of CD (n = 84), maintenance of surgical remission (n = 78), drug safety in pregnancy (n = 24) and use of infliximab (n = 7). Overall, 146 indications (26%) were judged appropriate, 129 (23%) uncertain and 294 (52%) inappropriate. Frank disagreement was low (14% overall) with the greatest disagreement (54% of scenarios) being observed for treatment of steroid-refractory disease. Conclusions: Detailed explicit appropriateness criteria for the appropriate use of therapy for CD were developed for the first time by a European expert panel. Disease location, severity and previous treatments were the main factors taken into account. User-friendly access to EPACT criteria is available via an Internet site, www.epact.ch, allowing prospective evaluation and improvement of appropriateness of current CD therapy. Copyright © 2006 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the clinical reasons tympanostomy tubes are proposed for children and to assess their appropriateness.Design: Analysis of data previously collected prospectively by a national utilization review (UR) firm during a two-step UR process to assess the medical appropriateness of tympanostomy tube placement. Nurses interviewed otolaryngologists' and primary care physicians' office staff to collect clinical data. For a randomly selected subsample of cases found inappropriate, we reviewed subsequent interviews of the otolaryngologists by physician reviewers, who looked for possible extenuating clinical circumstances or additional clinical data that might have changed the appropriateness category.Setting: Otolaryngologists' practices from 49 states and the District of Columbia.Patients: All 6611 children younger than 16 years who were insured by three clients of the UR firm and whose proposal to receive tympanostomy tubes were reviewed by this system from January 1, 1990, through July 31, 1991. The insurance companies in the study insured 5.6 million Americans at the time of the study.Main Outcome Measure: The medical appropriateness of tympanostomy tube surgery according to explicit criteria developed by an expert panel using the RAND/University of California-Los Angeles modified Delphi method.Results: A total of 6429 (97%) of the cases were proposed for recurrent acute otitis media, otitis media with effusion, or both. Making generous clinical assumptions, 41% of the proposals for these reasons had appropriate indications, 32% had equivocal indications, and 27% had inappropriate ones. Considering the additional information available from the subsample review, the proportion appropriate was 42%, equivocal 35%, and inappropriate 23%.Conclusion: About one quarter of tympanostomy tube insertions for children in this study were proposed for inappropriate indications and another third for equivocal ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

If the quality of care provided by a hospital affects its death rate, then some deaths must be preventable. We have developed a new method to investigate this issue and have reviewed 182 deaths from 12 hospitals (6 high outliers and 6 low outliers for death rate) for three conditions (cerebrovascular accident, pneumonia, or myocardial infarction). The investigators prepared a dictated summary of each patient's hospital course. Then, at least three physicians reviewed each summary and independently judged whether the death could have been prevented. Using a majority rules criterion (at least two of three physicians agreed), we found that 27% of the deaths might have been prevented. Using a unanimity criterion (all three physicians independently agreed), we found a 14% rate of probably preventable deaths. Patients whose deaths were probably preventable were younger (74.7 compared with 78.6 years, P less than 0.05), less often demented (12% compared with 26%, P less than 0.05), and less severely ill (mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score, 15.6 compared with 21.2; P less than 0.001) than patients whose deaths were nonpreventable. The physicians also listed causes for each probably preventable death; nine reasons encompassed almost all of them. For myocardial infarction, preventable deaths reflected errors in management. For cerebrovascular accident, however, deaths primarily reflected errors in diagnosis. The severity of illness can help a hospital retrospectively identify probably preventable deaths. In the group of patients who died, 42% of those with a low severity of illness had probably preventable deaths as compared to 11% admitted with a high severity of illness. We found that a significant number of hospital deaths might have been prevented. Our findings were based on a new method that needs further testing to substantiate its validity. These findings also need replication before they can be generalized to other hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and hematochezia, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of IDA and hematochezia was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: IDA occurs in 2 %-5 % of adult men and postmenopausal women. Examination of both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract is recommended in patients with iron deficiency. Colonoscopy for IDA yields one colorectal cancer (CRC) in every 9-13 colonoscopies. Hematochezia is a well-recognized alarm symptom and such patients are likely to be referred for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is unanimously recommended in patients aged > or = 50. Diverticulosis, vascular ectasias, and ischemic colitis are common causes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB); CRC is found in 0.2 %-11 % of the colonoscopies performed for LGIB. Most patients with scant hematochezia have an anorectal or a distal source of bleeding. The expert panel considered most clinical indications for colonoscopy as appropriate in the presence of IDA (58 %) or hematochezia (83 %)., Conclusion: Despite the limitations of the published studies, guidelines unanimously recommend colonoscopy for the investigation of IDA and hematochezia in patients aged > or = 50 years. These indications were also considered appropriate by EPAGE II, as were indications in patients at low risk for CRC with no obvious cause of bleeding found during adequate previous investigations.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for investigation of chronic diarrhea, management of patients with known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance in such patients, and to report report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding the evaluation of chronic diarrhea, the management of IBD, and colorectal cancer surveillance in IBD was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: According to the literature, colonoscopic evaluation may be justified for patients aged > 50 years with recent-onset chronic diarrhea or with alarm symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy for CRC should be offered to all patients with extensive ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease of 8 years' duration, and to all patients with less extensive disease of 15 years' duration. Intervals for surveillance colonoscopy depend on duration of evolution, initial diagnosis, and histological findings. The EPAGE II criteria also confirmed the appropriateness of diagnostic colonoscopy for diarrhea of > 4 weeks' duration. They also suggest that, in addition to assessing extent of IBD by colonoscopy, further colonoscopic examination is appropriate in the face of persistent or worsening symptoms. Surveillance colonoscopy in IBD patients was generally appropriate after a lapse of 2 years. In the presence of dysplasia at previous colonoscopy, it was not only appropriate but necessary., Conclusions: Despite or perhaps because of the limitations of the available published studies, the panel-based EPAGE II (http://www.epage.ch) criteria can help guide appropriate colonoscopy use in the absence of strong evidence from the literature.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [> or = 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection., Conclusions: Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

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.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of functional bowel symptoms, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of functional bowel symptoms was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions., Results: Much of the evidence for use of colonoscopy in evaluation of chronic abdominal pain, and/or constipation and/or abdominal bloating is modest. Major limitations include small numbers of patients and lack of adequate characterization of these patients. Large community-based follow-up studies are needed to enable better definition of the natural history of patients with functional bowel disorders. Guidelines stress that alarm features ("red flags"), such as rectal bleeding, anemia, weight loss, nocturnal symptoms, family history of colon cancer, age of onset > 50 years, and recent onset of symptoms should all lead to careful evaluation before a diagnosis of functional bowel disorder is made. EPAGE II assessed these symptoms by means of 12 clinical scenarios, rating colonoscopy as appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate in 42 % (5/12), 25 % (3/12), and 33 % (4/12) of these, respectively., Conclusions: Evidence to support the use of colonoscopy in the evaluation of patients with functional bowel disorders and no alarm features is lacking. These patients have no increased risk of colon cancer and thus advice on screening for this is not different from that for the general population. EPAGE II criteria, available online (http://www.epage.ch), consider colonoscopy appropriate in patients of > 50 years with chronic or new-onset bowel disturbances, but not in patients with isolated chronic abdominal pain.

Background and Study Aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II., Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances., Results: Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications., Conclusions: Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Objectives: To convene a multidisciplinary panel of dermatologists, surgical oncologists, and medical oncologists to formally review available data on the sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy procedure and high-dose adjuvant interferon alfa-2b therapy for patients with melanoma and to rate the "appropriateness," "inappropriateness," or "uncertainty" of the procedure and therapy to guide clinical decision making in practice., Participants: The panel comprised 13 specialists (4 dermatologists, 4 oncologists, and 5 surgeons) from geographically diverse areas who practiced in community-based settings (n = 8) and academic institutions (n = 5). Participants were chosen based on recommendations from the relevant specialty organizations., Evidence: A formal literature review was conducted by investigators at Protocare Sciences Inc, Santa Monica, Calif, on the risks and benefits of performing an SLN biopsy in patients with stage I or II melanoma and adjuvant interferon alfa-2b therapy in patients with stage II or III disease. The MEDLINE database was searched from 1966 through July 2000, and supplemental information was obtained from various cancer societies and cancer research groups. Panel participants were queried on additional sources of relevant information. Unpublished, presented data were included in abstract form on 1 recently closed clinical trial., Consensus Process: The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to review and rate multiple clinical scenarios for the use of SLN biopsy and interferon alfa-2b therapy. The consensus method did not force agreement., Conclusions: The panel rated 104 clinical scenarios and concluded that the SLN biopsy procedure was appropriate for primary melanomas deeper than 1.0 mm and for tumors 1 mm or less when histologic ulceration was present and/or classified as Clark level 4 or higher. The SLN biopsy was deemed inappropriate for nonulcerated Clark level 2 or 3 melanomas 0.75 mm or less in depth and uncertain in tumors 0.76 to 1.0 mm deep unless they were ulcerated or Clark level 4 or higher. Interferon alfa-2b therapy was deemed appropriate for patients with regional nodal and/or in-transit metastasis and for node-negative patients with primary melanomas deeper than 4 mm. The panel considered the use of interferon alfa-2b therapy uncertain in patients with ulcerated intermediate primary tumors (2.01-4.0 mm in depth) and inappropriate for node-negative patients with nonulcerated tumors less than 4.0 mm deep. Specialty-specific ratings were conducted as well.