Search

Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) exist for the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period; however, their methodological qualities vary. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool has been validated for the assessment of the methodological quality of CPGs; however, its reproducibility has not been assessed. The goal of this study was to assess the reproducibility of the AGREE II tool for CPGs published within the last 6 years for the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period., Study: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify eligible CPGs published between January 1, 2016 and April 14, 2022. The quality of the CPG was independently assessed by 6 reviewers using the AGREE II instrument. The reproducibility was summarized as weighted κ statistic and intraclass correlation coefficient using the SPSS statistical analysis package., Results: The search yielded 343 citations with 7 CPGs from Europe, Asia, and the United States included in the critical appraisal. The overall mean weighted κ score across all guidelines was 0.300 (range, 0.093 to 0.384) indicating a fair agreement. The overall intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.462 (range, 0.175 to 0.570) for single measures and 0.837 (range, 0.560 to 0.888) for average measures indicating moderate reliability., Conclusions: Our study shows only a fair overall interobserver agreement in the methodological quality of the included CPGs. The results suggest the need for education and training of CPG raters to enhance the application of the AGREE II tool to improve its reproducibility., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aim: The quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the management of antithrombotic agents in patients undergoing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has not been systematically appraised. The goal of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in periendoscopic period published within last 6 years., Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and Embase databases was performed to identify eligible CPGs published between January 1, 2016, and April 14, 2022, addressing the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period. The quality of the CPG was independently assessed by six reviewers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Domain scores were considered of sufficient quality when > 60% and of good quality when > 80%., Results: The search yielded 343 citations, of which seven CPGs published by the gastroenterology associations in Asia (n = 3), Europe (n = 2), and North America (n = 2) were included for the critical appraisal. The overall median score for the AGREE II domains was 93% (interquartile range [IQR] 11%) for scope and purpose, 79% (IQR 61%) for stakeholder involvement, 79% (IQR 36%) for rigor of development, 100% (IQR 14%) for clarity of presentation, 32% (IQR 36%) for applicability, 93% (IQR 29%) for editorial independence, and 86% (IQR 29%) for overall assessment., Conclusions: The findings show that the overall methodological quality of the CPGs for the management of antithrombotic agents in the periendoscopic period varies across the domains. There is significant scope for improvement in the methodological rigor and applicability of CPGs., (© 2024 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background and Aims: Endoscopic therapy is the standard treatment for high-grade dysplasia and some cases of T1a esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), but it is not appropriate for deeply invasive disease. Data on the value of EUS for patient selection for endoscopic or surgical resection are conflicting. We investigated the outcome of esophageal EUS for the staging and treatment selection of patients with treatment-naive, premalignant Barrett's esophagus (BE) and suspected superficial EAC., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed consecutive patients who underwent EUS for staging of treatment-naive, suspected premalignant BE and superficial EAC from January 2006 to June 2014. All patients referred for endoscopic therapy routinely underwent EUS. Patients with esophageal masses, squamous cell cancers, previous neoadjuvant therapy, or unrelated pathologies were excluded. Each patient's final diagnosis was verified by EMR, esophagectomy, or forceps biopsy sampling. Test characteristics of EUS were calculated., Results: Three hundred thirty-five patients (mean age, 68 years; 86% male) with BE, a Prague C mean of 2.8 cm, and a Prague M mean of 4.5 cm were staged (pT0, 78% [6% nondysplastic, 24% low-grade dysplasia, 42% high-grade dysplasia]; pT1a, 14%; pT1b, 7%; and pT2, 1%). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy for patient selection to endoscopic (T1aN0 or less) or surgical therapy with EUS TN staging were 50%, 93%, 40%, 95%, and 90%, respectively. Comparable rates were achieved for patients with nodular BE. Overstaging occurred in 7% of patients, and EUS selected 11% for incorrect treatment modalities compared with pathologic staging., Conclusions: This study confirms the limited value of EUS suggested in the latest American College of Gastroenterology guidelines for BE management., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)