Search

Item does not contain fulltext, 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 % sensitivit

Contains fulltext : 235679.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: One of the aims of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) is to encourage high quality endoscopic research at a European level. In 2016, the ESGE research committee published a set of research priorities. As endoscopic research is flourishing, we aimed to review the literature and determine whether endoscopic research over the last 4 years had managed to address any of our previously published priorities. METHODS: As the previously published priorities were grouped under seven different domains, a working party with at least two European experts was created for each domain to review all the priorities under that domain. A structured review form was developed to standardize the review process. The group conducted an extensive literature search relevant to each of the priorities and then graded the priorities into three categories: (1) no longer a priority (well-designed trial, incorporated in national/international guidelines or adopted in routine clinical practice); (2) remains a priority (i. e. the above criterion was not met); (3) redefine the existing priority (i. e. the priority was too vague with the research question not clearly defined). RESULTS: The previous ESGE research priorities document published in 2016 had 26 research priorities under seven domains. Our review of these priorities has resulted in seven priorities being removed from the list, one priority being partially removed, another seven being redefined to make them more precise, with eleven priorities remaining unchanged. This is a reflection of a rapid surge in endoscopic research, resulting in 27 % of research questions having already been answered and another 27 % requiring redefinition. CONCLUSIONS: Our extensive review process has led to the removal of seven research priorities from the previous (2016) list, leaving 19 research priorities that have been redefined to make them more precise and relevant for researchers and funding bodies to target.

BACKGROUND: Echocardiographic screening can detect asymptomatic cases of rheumatic heart disease (RHD), facilitating access to treatment. Barriers to implementation of echocardiographic screening include the requirement for expensive equipment and expert practitioners. We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated echocardiographic screening protocol (single parasternal-long-axis view with a sweep of the heart) performed by briefly trained, nonexpert practitioners using handheld ultrasound devices. METHODS: Participants aged 5 to 20 years in Timor-Leste and the Northern Territory of Australia had 2 echocardiograms: one performed by an expert echocardiographer using a GE Vivid I or Vivid Q portable ultrasound device (reference test), and one performed by a nonexpert practitioner using a GE Vscan handheld ultrasound device (index test). The accuracy of the index test, compared with the reference test, for identifying cases with definite or borderline RHD was determined. RESULTS: There were 3111 enrolled participants; 2573 had both an index test and reference test. Median age was 12 years (interquartile range, 10-15); 58.2% were female. Proportion with definite or borderline RHD was 5.52% (95% CI, 4.70-6.47); proportion with definite RHD was 3.23% (95% CI, 2.61-3.98). Compared with the reference test, sensitivity of the index test for definite or borderline RHD was 70.4% (95% CI, 62.2-77.8), specificity was 78.1% (95% CI, 76.4-79.8). CONCLUSIONS: Nonexpert practitioners can be trained to perform single parasternal-long-axis view with a sweep of the heart echocardiography. However, the specificity and sensitivity are inadequate for echocardiographic screening. Improved training for nonexpert practitioners should be investigated.

Contains fulltext : 215384.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), 1: ESGE suggests that high definition endoscopy, and dye or virtual chromoendoscopy, as well as add-on devices, can be used in average risk patients to increase the endoscopist's adenoma detection rate. However, their routine use must be balanced against costs and practical considerations.Weak recommendation, high quality evidence. 2: ESGE recommends the routine use of high definition systems in individuals with Lynch syndrome.Strong recommendation, high quality evidence. 3: ESGE recommends the routine use, with targeted biopsies, of dye-based pancolonic chromoendoscopy or virtual chromoendoscopy for neoplasia surveillance in patients with long-standing colitis.Strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence. 4: ESGE suggests that virtual chromoendoscopy and dye-based chromoendoscopy can be used, under strictly controlled conditions, for real-time optical diagnosis of diminutive (

Background In order to determine the extent to which care delivered to children is appropriate (in line with evidence-based care and/or clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)) in Australia, we developed a set of clinical indicators for 21 common paediatric medical conditions for use across a range of primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare practice facilities. Methods Clinical indicators were extracted from recommendations found through systematic searches of national and international guidelines, and formatted with explicit criteria for inclusion, exclusion, time frame and setting. Experts reviewed the indicators using a multi-round modified Delphi process and collaborative online wiki to develop consensus on what constituted appropriate care. Results From 121 clinical practice guidelines, 1098 recommendations were used to draft 451 proposed appropriateness indicators. In total, 61 experts (n = 24 internal reviewers, n = 37 external reviewers) reviewed these indicators over 40 weeks. A final set of 234 indicators resulted, from which 597 indicator items were derived suitable for medical record audit. Most indicator items were geared towards capturing information about under-use in healthcare (n = 551, 92%) across emergency department (n = 457, 77%), hospital (n = 450, 75%) and general practice (n = 434, 73%) healthcare facilities, and based on consensus level recommendations (n = 451, 76%). The main reason for rejecting indicators was ‘feasibility’ (likely to be able to be used for determining compliance with ‘appropriate care’ from medical record audit). Conclusion A set of indicators was developed for the appropriateness of care for 21 paediatric conditions. We describe the processes (methods), provenance (origins and evolution of indicators) and products (indicator characteristics) of creating clinical indicators within the context of Australian healthcare settings. Developing consensus on clinical appropriateness indicators using a Delphi approach and collabora

IMPORTANCE The quality of routine care for children is rarely assessed, and then usually in single settings or for single clinical conditions. OBJECTIVE To estimate the quality of health care for children in Australia in inpatient and ambulatory health care settings. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Multistage stratified sample with medical record review to assess adherence with quality indicators extracted from clinical practice guidelines for 17 common, high-burden clinical conditions (noncommunicable [n = 5], mental health [n = 4], acute infection [n = 7], and injury [n = 1]), such as asthma, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, tonsillitis, and head injury. For these 17 conditions, 479 quality indicators were identified, with the number varying by condition, ranging from 9 for eczema to 54 for head injury. Four hundred medical records were targeted for sampling for each of 15 conditions while 267 records were targeted for anxiety and 133 for depression. Within each selected medical record, all visits for the 17 targeted conditions were identified, and separate quality assessments made for each. Care was evaluated for 6689 children 15 years of age and younger who had 15 240 visits to emergency departments, for inpatient admissions, or to pediatricians and general practitioners in selected urban and rural locations in 3 Australian states. These visits generated 160 202 quality indicator assessments. EXPOSURES Quality indicators were identified through a systematic search of local and international guidelines. Individual indicators were extracted from guidelines and assessed using a 2-stage Delphi process. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Quality of care for each clinical condition and overall. RESULTS Of 6689 children with surveyed medical records, 53.6% were aged 0 to 4 years and 55.5% were male. Adherence to quality of care indicators was estimated at 59.8% (95% CI, 57.5%-62.0%; n = 160 202) across the 17 conditions, ranging from a high of 88.8% (95% CI, 83.0%-9

Aims: To compare neoplasia detection with AA targeted biopsies and protocol guided non-targeted biopsies during Barrett's surveillance. Methods: Multicentre randomized crossover feasibility study. Patients under surveillance for Barrett's metaplasia with no history of dysplasia/cancer were recruited. All patients underwent two gastroscopies 8 weeks apart, one with AA guided biopsy of abnormal areas only (Portsmouth Protocol) and one with non-targeted mapping biopsies (Seattle Protocol). Neoplasia yield and no. biopsies from each strategy was evaluated. Results: 200 patients recruited from 6 centres. Mean age 66yrs. Mean length C4M6. 175 patients completed both procedures. The prevalence of LGD, HGD and cancer was 11/192 (5.8%). All HGD and cancer was found with both protocols and confirmed with definitive treatment. One LGD was found with Portsmouth protocol and 5 LGD with Seattle protocol. This difference was not significant, and on follow up gastroscopy no neoplastic changes were found in any of the LGD cases. 2139 biopsies were taken using Seattle protocol at a cost of £125,987 (306 biopsies/neoplasia). 226 biopsies with Portsmouth Protocol at a cost of £13,311 (75 biopsies/neoplasia) a 4 fold difference. In terms of HGD/cancer, 1070 biopsies/neoplasia found using Seattle protocol and 113 biopsies/neoplasia using Portsmouth Protocol, a 9.5 fold difference. Conclusions: This is the first RCT comparing these techniques. No HGD or cancer was missed with either technique. There was a 4 fold reduction in biopsies per neoplasia detected with Portsmouth compared to Seattle protocol and a 9.5 fold difference when restricted to high risk neoplasia. If implemented nationally then this could lead to a massive reduction in histopathology work load and costs. LGD remains controversial and we believe inflammation could have resulted in false positive LGD as subsequent OGD and biopsies did not reveal any LGD. This feasibility data would support a definitive trial of AA targeted

BACKGROUND: Rheumatic heart disease (RHD) remains a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in children and young adults in disadvantaged populations. The emergence of echocardiographic screening provides the opportunity for early disease detection and intervention. Using our own multistate model of RHD progression derived from Australian RHD register data, we performed a cost-utility analysis of echocardiographic screening in indigenous Australian children, with the dual aims of informing policy decisions in Australia and providing a model that could be adapted in other countries. METHODS AND RESULTS: We simulated the outcomes of 2 screening strategies, assuming that RHD could be detected 1, 2, or 3 years earlier by screening. Outcomes included reductions in heart failure, surgery, mortality, disability-adjusted life-years, and corresponding costs. Only a strategy of screening all indigenous 5- to 12-year-olds in half of their communities in alternate years was found to be cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio less than AU$50 000 per disability-adjusted life-year averted), assuming that RHD can be detected at least 2 years earlier by screening; however, this result was sensitive to a number of assumptions. Additional modeling of improved adherence to secondary prophylaxis alone resulted in dramatic reductions in heart failure, surgery, and death; these outcomes improved even further when combined with screening. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic screening for RHD is cost-effective in our context, assuming that RHD can be detected ≥2 years earlier by screening. Our model can be adapted to any other setting but will require local data or acceptable assumptions for model parameters.