Search

The optimal small bowel preparation modality before capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is still uncertain, regarding preparation type, dose and timing of administration.The aim of the study is to evaluate the small bowel cleansing in patients undergoing small bowel capsule endoscopy after fasting alone or active treatment with purgative solutions.We searched 4 major scientific databases from inception to December 2021 for studies evaluating small bowel preparation before SBCE. Different preparation efficacy was compared using fasting as reference. Main variables evaluated in the current study were: preparation type, administration schedule and timing.17 studies (27 treatment arms) with 2372 patients (male 47,4%) were included, mean age 54 years. Fasting alone VS overall purgative preparations pooled rate difference (RD) was 0.15 I2=81.5% p: 0.000. Sub-analysis for preparation schedule (day-before, split and same-day) and the time lapse showed that administration of PEG after the ingestion of capsule had the highest rate of adequate small bowel cleansing with a RD 0.33, administration between 1 and 6 h before SBCE had a RD 0.28, 6 to 12 h had a RD 0.21 and ≥12 h had a RD 0.05.Timing of ingestion was found to be critical for bowel cleansing; the shorter time laps between the ingestion last dose of laxative and SBCE, the better was the mucosal visualization.

This ESGE Position Statement defines the expected value of artificial intelligence (AI) for the diagnosis and management of gastrointestinal neoplasia within the framework of the performance measures already defined by ESGE. This is based on the clinical relevance of the expected task and the preliminary evidence regarding artificial intelligence in artificial or clinical settings. Main recommendations: (1) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, the adequate level of mucosal inspection with AI should be comparable to that assessed by experienced endoscopists. (2) For acceptance of AI in assessment of completeness of upper GI endoscopy, automated recognition and photodocumentation of relevant anatomical landmarks should be obtained in ≥90% of the procedures. (3) For acceptance of AI in the detection of Barrett’s high grade intraepithelial neoplasia or cancer, the AI-assisted detection rate for suspicious lesions for targeted biopsies should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists with or without advanced imaging techniques. (4) For acceptance of AI in the management of Barrett’s neoplasia, AI-assisted selection of lesions amenable to endoscopic resection should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (5) For acceptance of AI in the diagnosis of gastric precancerous conditions, AI-assisted diagnosis of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia should be comparable to that provided by the established biopsy protocol, including the estimation of extent, and consequent allocation to the correct endoscopic surveillance interval. (6) For acceptance of artificial intelligence for automated lesion detection in small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE), the performance of AI-assisted reading should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists for lesion detection, without increasing but possibly reducing the reading time of the operator. (7) For acceptance of AI in the detection of colorectal polyps, the AI-assisted adenoma detection rate should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists. (8) For acceptance of AI optical diagnosis (computer-aided diagnosis [CADx]) of diminutive polyps (≤5 mm), AI-assisted characterization should match performance standards for implementing resect-and-discard and diagnose-and-leave strategies. (9) For acceptance of AI in the management of polyps ≥ 6 mm, AI-assisted characterization should be comparable to that of experienced endoscopists in selecting lesions amenable to endoscopic resection.

Background and Aims: Dye-based chromoendoscopy (DBC) could be effective in increasing the adenoma detection rate (ADR) in patients undergoing colonoscopy, but the technique is time-consuming and its uptake is limited. We aimed to assess the effect of DBC on ADR based on available randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: Four databases were searched up to April 2022 for RCTs comparing DBC with conventional colonoscopy (CC) in terms of ADR, advanced ADR, and sessile serrated adenoma detection rate as well as the mean adenomas per patient and non-neoplastic lesions. Relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random-effect models. The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool. Results: Overall, 10 RCTs (5334 patients) were included. Indication for colonoscopy was screening or surveillance (3 studies) and mixed (7 studies). Pooled ADR was higher in the DBC group versus the CC group (95% CI, 48.1% [41.4%-54.8%] vs 39.3% [33.5%-46.4%]; RR, 1.20 [1.11-1.29]), with low heterogeneity (I2 = 29%). This effect was consistent for advanced ADR (RR, 1.21 [1.03-1.42]; I2 = .0%), sessile serrated adenomas (6.1% vs 3.5%; RR, 1.68 [1.15-2.47]; I2 = 9.8%), and mean adenomas per patient (MD, .24 [.17-.31]) overall and in the right-sided colon (MD, .28 [.14-.43]). A subgroup analysis considering only trials using high-definition white-light endoscopy reduced the heterogeneity while still showing a significant increase in adenoma detection with DBC: 51.6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1%-56.1%) and 59.1% (95% CI, 54.7-63.3%), RR = 1.14 (95% CI, 1.06-1.23), P = .0004, I2 = .0%, P = .50. Conclusions: Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that DBC increases key quality parameters in colonoscopy, supporting its use in everyday clinical practice.

Background and study aims Artificial intelligence (AI) is set to impact several fields within gastroenterology. In gastrointestinal endoscopy, AI-based tools have translated into clinical practice faster than expected. We aimed to evaluate the status of research for AI in gastroenterology while predicting its future applications. Methods All studies registered on Clinicaltrials.gov up to November 2021 were analyzed. The studies included used AI in gastrointestinal endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), hepatology, and pancreatobiliary diseases. Data regarding the study field, methodology, endpoints, and publication status were retrieved, pooled, and analyzed to observe underlying temporal and geographical trends. Results Of the 103 study entries retrieved according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria, 76 (74 %) were based on AI application to gastrointestinal endoscopy, mainly for detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia (52/103, 50 %). Image analysis was also more frequently reported than data analysis for pancreaticobiliary (six of 10 [60 %]), liver diseases (eight of nine [89 %]), and IBD (six of eight [75 %]). Overall, 48 of 103 study entries (47 %) were interventional and 55 (53 %) observational. In 2018, one of eight studies (12.5 %) were interventional, while in 2021, 21 of 34 (61.8 %) were interventional, with an inverse ratio between observational and interventional studies during the study period. The majority of the studies were planned as single-center (74 of 103 [72 %]) and more were in Asia (45 of 103 [44 %]) and Europe (44 of 103 [43 %]). Conclusions AI implementation in gastroenterology is dominated by computer-aided detection and characterization of colorectal neoplasia. The timeframe for translational research is characterized by a swift conversion of observational into interventional studies.

Background Optical diagnosis of colonic polyps is poorly reproducible outside of high volume referral centers. The present study aimed to assess whether real-time artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted optical diagnosis is accurate enough to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive (≤ 5 mm) rectosigmoid polyps (DRSPs). Methods Consecutive colonoscopy outpatients with ≥ 1 DRSP were included. DRSPs were categorized as adenomas or nonadenomas by the endoscopists, who had differing expertise in optical diagnosis, with the assistance of a real-time AI system (CAD-EYE). The primary end point was ≥ 90 % negative predictive value (NPV) for adenomatous histology in high confidence AI-assisted optical diagnosis of DRSPs (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable endoscopic Innovations [PIVI-1] threshold), with histopathology as the reference standard. The agreement between optical- and histology-based post-polypectomy surveillance intervals (≥ 90 %; PIVI-2 threshold) was also calculated according to European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United States Multi-Society Task Force (USMSTF) guidelines. Results Overall 596 DRSPs were retrieved for histology in 389 patients; an AI-assisted high confidence optical diagnosis was made in 92.3 %. The NPV of AI-assisted optical diagnosis for DRSPs (PIVI-1) was 91.0 % (95 %CI 87.1 %–93.9 %). The PIVI-2 threshold was met with 97.4 % (95 %CI 95.7 %–98.9 %) and 92.6 % (95 %CI 90.0 %–95.2 %) of patients according to ESGE and USMSTF, respectively. AI-assisted optical diagnosis accuracy was significantly lower for nonexperts (82.3 %, 95 %CI 76.4 %–87.3 %) than for experts (91.9 %, 95 %CI 88.5 %–94.5 %); however, nonexperts quickly approached the performance levels of experts over time. Conclusion AI-assisted optical diagnosis matches the required PIVI thresholds. This does not however offset the need for endoscopistsʼ high level confidence and expertise. The AI system seems to be useful, especially for nonexperts.

Background and study aims The European Colonoscopy Quality Investigation (ECQI) Group comprises expert colonoscopists and investigators with the aim of raising colonoscopy standards. We assessed the levels of monitoring and achievement of European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) performance measures (PMs) across Europe using responses to the ECQI questionnaires. Methods The questionnaire comprises three forms: institution and practitioner questionnaires are completed once; a procedure questionnaire is completed on multiple occasions for individual total colonoscopies. ESGE PMs were approximated as closely as possible from the data collected via the procedure questionnaire. Procedure data could provide rate of adequate bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate (CIR), withdrawal time, polyp detection rate (PDR), and tattooing resection sites. Results We evaluated ECQI questionnaire data collected between June 2016 and April 2018, comprising 91 practitioner and 52 institution questionnaires. A total of 6445 completed procedure forms were received.Institution and practitioner responses indicate that routine recording of PMs is not widespread: adenoma detection rate (ADR) is routinely recorded in 29 % of institutions and by 34 % of practitioners; PDR by 42 % and 47 %, CIR by 62 % and 64 %, bowel preparation quality by 56 % and 76 %, respectively.Procedure data showed a rate of adequate bowel preparation of 84.2 %, CIR 73.4 %, PDR 40.5 %, mean withdrawal time 7.8 minutes and 12.2 % of procedures with possible removal of a non-pedunculated lesion ≥ 20 mm reporting tattooing. Conclusions Our findings clearly show areas in need of quality improvement and the importance of promoting quality monitoring throughout the colonoscopy procedure.

Objectives: Previous meta-analysis including nonrandomized studies showed marginal benefit of underwater endoscopic mucosal resection(U-EMR) compared to conventional EMR(C-EMR) in terms of polypectomy outcomes. We evaluated U-EMR compared to C-EMR in the treatment of colorectal polyps with respect to effectiveness and safety by analyzing only randomized controlled trials(RCTs). Material and methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library databases were searched for RCTs published until 11/2020, evaluating U-EMR vs. C-EMR regarding en bloc resection, post-endoscopic resection adenoma recurrence, complete resection, adverse events rates and difference in resection time. Abstracts from Digestive Disease Week, United European Gastroenterology Week and ESGE Days meetings were also searched. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio(RR; 95% confidence interval[CI]) or mean difference(MD; 95%CI). The I2 test was used for quantifying heterogeneity, while Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) was used to assess strength of evidence. Results: Six RCTs analyzing outcomes from 1157 colorectal polypectomies(U-EMR589;C-EMR,568) were included. U-EMR associated with significant higher rate of en bloc resection compared to C-EMR [RR(95%CI):1.26(1.01-1.58); Chi² for heterogeneity=30.43, P

The role of Helicobater pylori eradication in the treatment of high-grade diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) of the stomach is unclear.We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of currently available data. DLBCL-remission rate after eradication therapy, post-remission maintenance, and response rate in the case of additional oncological therapy were extracted.By considering data of seven studies, the DLBCL remission was achieved in 81 (53.3%; 95% CI = 45.3-61.2) out of 152 H. pylori eradicated patients. The regression rate did not differ between pure DLCBL and DLCBL with MALT component, between stage I and stage II disease, and between Caucasians and Asians. Disease regression was maintained in all patients after at a median of 63 months (range: 46-29) follow-up. In those non-responders, DLBLC remission after additional chemo-immunotherapy was achieved in 63 (98.4%; 95% CI = 95.4-100) out of 64 patients.Data this systematic review suggest considering H. pylori eradication as first-line therapy to treat infected patients with early-stage, high-grade gastric lymphoma.

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools aimed at improving polyp detection have been shown to increase the adenoma detection rate during colonoscopy. However, it is unknown how increased polyp detection rates by AI affect the burden of patient surveillance after polyp removal.We conducted a pooled analysis of 9 randomized controlled trials (5 in China, 2 in Italy, 1 in Japan, and 1 in the United States) comparing colonoscopy with or without AI detection aids. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients recommended to undergo intensive surveillance (ie, 3-year interval). We analyzed intervals for AI and non-AI colonoscopies for the U.S. and European recommendations separately. We estimated proportions by calculating relative risks using the Mantel-Haenszel method.A total of 5796 patients (51% male, mean 53 years of age) were included; 2894 underwent AI-assisted colonoscopy and 2902 non-AI colonoscopy. When following U.S. guidelines, the proportion of patients recommended intensive surveillance increased from 8.4% (95% CI, 7.4%-9.5%) in the non-AI group to 11.3% (95% CI, 10.2%-12.6%) in the AI group (absolute difference, 2.9% [95% CI, 1.4%-4.4%]; risk ratio, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.16-1.57]). When following European guidelines, it increased from 6.1% (95% CI, 5.3%-7.0%) to 7.4% (95% CI, 6.5%-8.4%) (absolute difference, 1.3% [95% CI, 0.01%-2.6%]; risk ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.47]).The use of AI during colonoscopy increased the proportion of patients requiring intensive colonoscopy surveillance by approximately 35% in the United States and 20% in Europe (absolute increases of 2.9% and 1.3%, respectively). While this may contribute to improved cancer prevention, it significantly adds patient burden and healthcare costs.

Background Estimates on miss rates for upper gastrointestinal neoplasia (UGIN) rely on registry data or old studies. Quality assurance programs for upper GI endoscopy are not fully established owing to the lack of infrastructure to measure endoscopists’ competence. We aimed to assess endoscopists’ accuracy for the recognition of UGIN exploiting the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Methods Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to August 2020 were performed to identify articles evaluating the accuracy of individual endoscopists for the recognition of UGIN within studies validating AI against a histologically verified expert-annotated ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists’ pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) for all UGIN, for esophageal squamous cell neoplasia (ESCN), Barrett esophagus-related neoplasia (BERN), and gastric adenocarcinoma (GAC). Results Seven studies (2 ESCN, 3 BERN, 1 GAC, 1 UGIN overall) with 122 endoscopists were included. The pooled endoscopists’ sensitivity and specificity for UGIN were 82 % (95 % confidence interval [CI] 80 %–84 %) and 79 % (95 %CI 76 %–81 %), respectively. Endoscopists’ accuracy was higher for GAC detection (AUC 0.95 [95 %CI 0.93–0.98]) than for ESCN (AUC 0.90 [95 %CI 0.88–0.92]) and BERN detection (AUC 0.86 [95 %CI 0.84–0.88]). Sensitivity was higher for Eastern vs. Western endoscopists (87 % [95 %CI 84 %–89 %] vs. 75 % [95 %CI 72 %–78 %]), and for expert vs. non-expert endoscopists (85 % [95 %CI 83 %–87 %] vs. 71 % [95 %CI 67 %–75 %]). Conclusion We show suboptimal accuracy of endoscopists for the recognition of UGIN even within a framework that included a higher prevalence and disease awareness. Future AI validation studies represent a framework to assess endoscopist competence.

Background The Endocuff Vision device (Arc Medical Design Ltd., Leeds, UK) has been shown to increase mucosal exposure, and consequently adenoma detection rate (ADR), during colonoscopy. This nationwide multicenter study assessed possible benefits and harms of using Endocuff Vision in a fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening program. Methods Patients undergoing colonoscopy after a FIT-positive test were randomized 1:1 to undergo Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy or standard colonoscopy, stratified by sex, age, and screening history. Primary outcome was ADR. Secondary outcomes were ADR stratified by endoscopists’ ADR, advanced ADR (AADR), adenomas per colonoscopy (APC), withdrawal time, and adverse events. Results 1866 patients were enrolled across 13 centers. After exclusions, 1813 (mean age 60.1 years; male 53.8 %) were randomized (908 Endocuff Vision, 905 standard colonoscopy). ADR was significantly higher in the Endocuff Vision arm (47.8 % vs. 40.8 %; relative risk [RR] 1.17, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.06–1.30), with no differences between arms regarding size or morphology. When stratifying for endoscopists’ ADR, only low detectors (ADR Conclusion Endocuff Vision increased ADR in a FIT-based screening program by improving examination of the whole colonic mucosa. Utility was highest among endoscopists with a low ADR.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society (JGES) give no specific recommendations on the best treatment for colorectal neoplasia involving the dental line (DLCN).Aim of this study was to analyse efficacy and safety of Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the dentate line (DLCN) compared to non-DLCN.Retrospective study.We retrospectively evaluated all consecutive patients undergoing ESD for rectal neoplasia at two endoscopical tertiary referral centers (Italy and Japan) from January 2008 to December 2019.Anthropometric, clinical, procedural, and follow-up data was collected, analysed, and compared between patients with DLCN and patients with non-DLCN.Overall, 314 patients were enrolled (163 female, 51.9%). Mean age was 68 years (range, 32-92 years). En-bloc resection was achieved in 311/314 (99%) patients. Lesion size was higher in DLCN group than in the non-DLCN group (46.1 vs 38.9 mm;Retrospective study design.ESD seems to be safe and effective in the treatment of colorectal neoplasia involving the dentate line and can be considered the best therapeutic strategy.

Widespread adoption of optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia is prevented by suboptimal endoscopist performance and lack of standardized training and competence evaluation. We aimed to assess diagnostic accuracy of endoscopists in optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia in the framework of artificial intelligence (AI) validation studies. Literature searches of databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus) up to April 2022 were performed to identify articles evaluating accuracy of individual endoscopists in performing optical diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia within studies validating AI against a histologically verified ground-truth. The main outcomes were endoscopists' pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value (PPV/NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratio (LR) and area under the curve (AUC for sROC) for predicting adenomas versus non-adenomas. Six studies with 67 endoscopists and 2085 (IQR: 115-243,5) patients were evaluated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for adenomatous histology was respectively 84.5% (95% CI 80.3%-88%) and 83% (95% CI 79.6%-85.9%), corresponding to a PPV, NPV, LR+, LR- of 89.5% (95% CI 87.1%-91.5%), 75.7% (95% CI 70.1%-80.7%), 5 (95% CI 3.9%-6.2%) and 0.19 (95% CI 0.14%-0.25%). The AUC was 0.82 (CI 0.76-0.90). Expert endoscopists showed a higher sensitivity than non-experts (90.5%, [95% CI 87.6%-92.7%] vs. 75.5%, [95% CI 66.5%-82.7%], p

Complete transection of the main bile duct (CTMD) is a major complication during hepato-bilio-pancreatic (HBP) surgery and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, a combined endoscopic-radiological approach (CERA) for minimally invasive treatment of CTMD has been introduced, but evidence on its long-term outcomes is limited. Our aim is to report efficacy, safety, and long-term outcomes of CERA for the management of post-surgical CTMD in a tertiary referral center.All consecutive patients referred for CTMD after HBP surgery between February 2012 and January 2021 were included in this study. CERA was first performed to re-establish biliary tree continuity, and then multiple biliary plastic stents were deployed to guarantee biliary tree reconstruction. Anthropometric, clinical, procedural (endoscopic/radiologic/surgical), and follow-up data were collected and analyzed. Each lesion was classified according to Strasberg classification.Overall, 60 patients (age 60.5 years, range 28-91), 38 F (61.7%), underwent CERA. Mean interval from surgery to endoscopic treatment was 13.2 days. Mean treatment duration was 526 days (SD ± 415) with a median number of 8 endoscopic sessions (range 1-33). Mean length of the biliary defect was 17.6 mm (SD ± 11.5). Long-term clinical success was achieved in 33/49 (67.3%) of patients. Treatment failure was experienced in 16/49 (32.7%) patients, while after an average follow-up of 41 months, stricture recurrence was observed in 3/36 (8.3%) patients.CERA is a minimally invasive and effective technique to re-establish the continuity of the biliary tract after CTMD, achieving permanent restoration in over half of treated patients.

Contains fulltext : 252148.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

Various endoscopic resection techniques have been proposed for the treatment of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps sized 6-20 mm, however the optimal technique still remains unclear.A comprehensive literature review was conducted for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), investigating the efficacy of endoscopic treatments for the management of 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps. Primary outcomes were complete and en bloc resection rates and adverse event rate was the secondary. Effect size on outcomes is presented as risk ratio (RR; 95% confidence interval [CI]).Fourteen RCTs (5219 polypectomies) were included. Endoscopic mucosal resection(EMR) significantly outperformed cold snare polypectomy(CSP) in terms of complete [(RR 95%CI): 1.04(1.00-1.07)] and en bloc resection rate [RR:1.12(1.04-1.21)]. EMR was superior to hot snare polypectomy (HSP) [RR:1.04(1.00-1.08)] regarding complete resection, while underwater EMR (U-EMR) achieved significantly higher rate of en bloc resection compared to CSP [RR:1.15(1.01-1.30)]. EMR yielded the highest ranking for complete resection(SUCRA-score 0.81), followed by cold-snare EMR(CS-EMR,SUCRA-score 0.76). None of the modalities was different regarding adverse event rate compared to CSP, however EMR and CS-EMR resulted in fewer adverse events compared to HSP [RR:0.44(0.26-0.77) and 0.43(0.21-0.87),respectively].EMR achieved the highest performance in resecting 6-20 mm nonpedunculated colorectal polyps, with this effect being consistent for polyps 6-9 and ≥10 mm; findings supported by very low quality of evidence.

Background The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) has developed a core curriculum for high quality optical diagnosis training for practice across Europe. The development of easy-to-measure competence standards for optical diagnosis can optimize clinical decision-making in endoscopy. This manuscript represents an official Position Statement of the ESGE aiming to define simple, safe, and easy-to-measure competence standards for endoscopists and artificial intelligence systems performing optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps (1 – 5 mm). Methods A panel of European experts in optical diagnosis participated in a modified Delphi process to reach consensus on Simple Optical Diagnosis Accuracy (SODA) competence standards for implementation of the optical diagnosis strategy for diminutive colorectal polyps. In order to assess the clinical benefits and harms of implementing optical diagnosis with different competence standards, a systematic literature search was performed. This was complemented with the results from a recently performed simulation study that provides guidance for setting alternative competence standards for optical diagnosis. Proposed competence standards were based on literature search and simulation study results. Competence standards were accepted if at least 80 % agreement was reached after a maximum of three voting rounds. Recommendation 1 In order to implement the leave-in-situ strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 90 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm in the rectosigmoid. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 95 %. Recommendation 2 In order to implement the resect-and-discard strategy for diminutive colorectal lesions (1–5 mm), it is clinically acceptable if, during real-time colonoscopy, at least 80 % sensitivity and 80 % specificity is achieved for high confidence endoscopic characterization of colorectal neoplasia of 1–5 mm. Histopathology is used as the gold standard.Level of agreement 100 %. Conclusion The developed SODA competence standards define diagnostic performance thresholds in relation to clinical consequences, for training and for use when auditing the optical diagnosis of diminutive colorectal polyps.