Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Vanessa Felipe
Marta Carrillo
Laura Ramos
Alejandro Jiménez-Sosa
Miguel Moreno
Yanira González
A Z Gimeno García
O. Alarcon Fernandez
Zaida Adrian
David Nicolás-Pérez
Juan Carlos Diaz
Rafael Romero
Miguel T. Hernandez
Enrique Quintero
Source :
Endoscopy. 44:32-37
Publication Year :
2011
Publisher :
Georg Thieme Verlag KG, 2011.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE I) criteria were recently updated (EPAGE II), but no prospective studies have used these criteria in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to validate the EPAGE II criteria in an open-access endoscopy unit. PATIENTS AND METHODS A prospective observational study was conducted in an open-access endoscopy unit at a tertiary care referral center. Consecutive outpatients (n = 1004; mean age 58.9 ± 13.1 years; 45 % men) were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy between September 2009 and February 2010. The appropriateness of colonoscopy was assessed based on EPAGE II criteria, and the relationship between appropriateness and both referral doctor and detection of significant lesions was examined. The effectiveness of EPAGE II criteria in assessing appropriateness was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting significant lesions. RESULTS Colonoscopic cecal intubation was achieved in 956 patients (95.2 %). Most referral doctors were gastroenterologists (58.0 %) and the most common indication was colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (35.2 %). EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 968 patients (96.4 %); of these patients, the indication was appropriate in 778 (80.4 %), inappropriate in 102 (10.5 %), and uncertain in 88 (9.1 %). Patients with appropriate or uncertain indications based on EPAGE II criteria had more relevant endoscopic findings than those with inappropriate indications (38.8 % vs. 24.5 %; OR 1.95, 95 %CI 1.22 - 3.13; P

Details

ISSN :
14388812 and 0013726X
Volume :
44
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Endoscopy
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....6331b45ce9996bb97c703b9f86d5525f
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1291386