C. Arditi

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) Screening for colorectal cancer

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.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) – Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer

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.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.

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.

How can we teach EBM in clinical practice?? An analysis of barriers to implementation of on-the-job EBM teaching and learning

Introduction: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) improves the quality of health care. Courses on how to teach EBM in practice are available, but knowledge does not automatically imply its application in teaching. We aimed to identify and compare barriers and facilitators for teaching EBM in clinical practice in various European countries. Methods: A questionnaire was constructed listing potential barriers and facilitators for EBM teaching in clinical practice. Answers were reported on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all being a barrier to being an insurmountable barrier. Results: The questionnaire was completed by 120 clinical EBM teachers from 11 countries. Lack of time was the strongest barrier for teaching EBM in practice (median 5). Moderate barriers were the lack of requirements for EBM skills and a pyramid hierarchy in health care management structure (median 4). In Germany, Hungary and Poland, reading and understanding articles in English was a higher barrier than in the other countries. Conclusion: Incorporation of teaching EBM in practice faces several barriers to implementation. Teaching EBM in clinical settings is most successful where EBM principles are culturally embedded and form part and parcel of everyday clinical decisions and medical practice.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) – Iron-deficiency anemia and hematochezia

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.

How are "teaching the teachers" courses in evidence based medicine evaluated? A systematic review

BackgroundTeaching of evidence-based medicine (EBM) has become widespread in medical education. Teaching the teachers (TTT) courses address the increased teaching demand and the need to improve effectiveness of EBM teaching. We conducted a systematic review of assessment tools for EBM TTT courses. To summarise and appraise existing assessment methods for teaching the teachers courses in EBM by a systematic review.MethodsWe searched PubMed, BioMed, EmBase, Cochrane and Eric databases without language restrictions and included articles that assessed its participants. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers.ResultsOf 1230 potentially relevant studies, five papers met the selection criteria. There were no specific assessment tools for evaluating effectiveness of EBM TTT courses. Some of the material available might be useful in initiating the development of such an assessment tool.ConclusionThere is a need for the development of educationally sound assessment tools for teaching the teachers courses in EBM, without which it would be impossible to ascertain if such courses have the desired effect.

Adding non-randomised studies to a Cochrane review brings complementary information for healthcare stakeholders: an augmented systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundTo reduce the burden of asthma, chronic disease management (CDM) programmes have been widely implemented and evaluated. Reviews including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that CDM programmes for asthma are effective. Other study designs are however often used for pragmatic reasons, but excluded from these reviews because of their design. We aimed to examine what complementary information could be retrieved from the addition of non-randomised studies to the studies included in a published Cochrane review on asthma CDM programmes, for healthcare stakeholders involved in the development, implementation, conduct or long-term sustainability of such programmes.MethodsExtending a previously published Cochrane review, we performed a systematic review (augmented review) including any type of study designs instead of only those initially accepted by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review group. After double data selection and extraction, we compared study and intervention characteristics, assessed methodological quality and ran meta-analyses, by study design.ResultsWe added 37 studies to the 20 studies included in the Cochrane review. The applicability of results was increased because of the larger variety of settings and asthma population considered. Also, adding non-randomised studies provided new evidence of improvements associated with CDM intervention (i.e. healthcare utilisation, days off work, use of action plan). Finally, evidence of CDM effectiveness in the added studies was consistent with the Cochrane review in terms of direction of effects.ConclusionsThe evidence of this augmented review is applicable to a broader set of patients and settings than those in the original Cochrane review. It also strengthens the message that CDM programmes have a beneficial effect on quality of life and disease severity, meaningful outcomes for the everyday life of patients with asthma. Despite the moderate to low methodological quality of all studies included, calling for caution in results interpretation and improvements in CDM evaluation methods and reporting, the inclusion of a broader set of study designs in systematic reviews of complex interventions, such as chronic disease management, is likely to be of high value and interest to patients, policymakers and other healthcare stakeholders.

The use of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument in diabetes care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) was created to assess whether provided care is congruent with the Chronic Care Model, according to patients. We aimed to identify all studies using the PACIC in diabetic patients to explore (i) how overall PACIC scores varied across studies and (ii) whether scores varied according to healthcare delivery, patient and instrument characteristics. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and PubMed Central (PMC), from 2005 to 2016. Study selection Studies of any design using the PACIC in diabetic patients. Data extraction and synthesis We extracted data on healthcare delivery, patient, and instrument characteristics, and overall PACIC score and standard deviation. We performed random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions. Results We identified 34 studies including 25 942 patients from 13 countries, mostly in North America and Europe, using different versions of the PACIC in 11 languages. The overall PACIC score fluctuated between 1.7 and 4.2, with a pooled score of 3.0 (95% confidence interval 2.8-3.2, 95% predictive interval 1.9-4.2), with very high heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). The PACIC variance was not explained by healthcare delivery or patient characteristics, but by the number of points on the response scale (5 vs. 11) and the continent (Asia vs. others). Conclusion The PACIC is a widely used instrument, but the direct comparison of PACIC scores between studies should be performed with caution as studies may employ different versions and the influence of cultural norms and language on the PACIC score remains unknown.