Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Mary L. Krinsky is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Mary L. Krinsky.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2009

Management of antithrombotic agents for endoscopic procedures

Michelle A. Anderson; Tamir Ben-Menachem; S. Ian Gan; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Brooks D. Cash; Laurel Fisher; M. Edwyn Harrison; Robert D. Fanelli; Norio Fukami; Steven O. Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; David R. Lichtenstein; John T. Maple; Bo Shen; Laura Strohmeyer; Todd H. Baron; Jason A. Dominitz

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. This guideline combines and updates 2 previously issued guidelines, ‘‘Guideline on the management of antithrombotic and antiplatelet therapy for endoscopic procedures’’ and ‘‘ASGE guideline: the management of lowmolecular-weight heparin and nonaspirin antiplatelet agents for endoscopic procedures.’’ To prepare this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as ‘‘we suggest,’’ whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as ‘‘we recommend.’’ This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2003

Complications of ERCP

Michelle A. Anderson; Laurel Fisher; Rajeev Jain; John A. Evans; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Brooks D. Cash; G. Anton Decker; Dayna S. Early; Robert D. Fanelli; Deborah A. Fisher; Norio Fukami; Joo Ha Hwang; Steven O. Ikenberry; Terry L. Jue; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; Phyllis M. Malpas; John T. Maple; Ravi Sharaf; Amandeep K. Shergill; Jason A. Dominitz

d ( t s f t c s n d i a s a This is one of a series of position statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. This document is an update of a previous ASGE publication.1 In preparing this document, a search of the medical iterature was performed using PubMed. Additional refernces were obtained from the bibliographies of the identied articles and from recommendations of expert consulants. When limited or no data exist from well-designed rospective trials, emphasis is given to results from large eries and reports from recognized experts. Position stateents are based on a critical review of the available data nd expert consensus at the time that the document was rafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed o clarify aspects of this document, which may be revised s necessary to account for changes in technology, new ata, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device o provide information that may assist endoscopists in roviding care to patients. This position statement is not a ule and should not be construed as establishing a legal tandard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requirng, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical ecisions in any particular case involve a complex analsis of the patient’s condition and available courses of ction. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an ndoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this osition statement. Since its introduction in 1968, ERCP has become a comonly performed endoscopic procedure.2 The diagnostic nd therapeutic utility of ERCP has been well demonstrated or a variety of disorders, including the management of choedocholithiasis, the diagnosis and management of biliary nd pancreatic neoplasms, and the postoperative manageent of biliary perioperative complications.3-5 The evolution of the role of ERCP has occurred simultaneously with that of other diagnostic and therapeutic modalities, most notably magnetic resonance imaging/MRCP, laparoscopic cholecystectomy (with or without intraoperative cholangiography), and EUS. For endoscopists to accurately assess the clinical appropriateness of ERCP, it is important to have a thorough


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2010

The role of endoscopy in the evaluation of suspected choledocholithiasis

John T. Maple; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Michelle A. Anderson; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Brooks D. Cash; Laurel Fisher; M. Edwyn Harrison; Robert D. Fanelli; Norio Fukami; Steven O. Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; Laura Strohmeyer; Jason A. Dominitz

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1). This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines. Gallstone disease affects more than 20 million American adults at an annual cost of


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2011

Management of ingested foreign bodies and food impactions

Steven O. Ikenberry; Terry L. Jue; Michelle A. Anderson; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Tamir Ben-Menachem; G. Anton Decker; Robert D. Fanelli; Laurel Fisher; Norio Fukami; M. Edwyn Harrison; Rajeev Jain; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; John T. Maple; Ravi Sharaf; Laura Strohmeyer; Jason A. Dominitz

6.2 billion. A subset of these patients will also have choledocholithiasis, including 5% to 10% of those undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic cholelithiasis and 18% to 33% of patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. The approach to patients with suspected choledocholithiasis requires careful consideration because missed common bile duct (CBD) stones pose a risk of recurrent symptoms, pancreatitis, and cholangitis. However, the morbidity and cost


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2011

Multisociety guideline on reprocessing flexible gastrointestinal endoscopes: 2011.

Bret T. Petersen; Jennifer Chennat; Jonathan Cohen; Peter B. Cotton; David A. Greenwald; Thomas E. Kowalski; Mary L. Krinsky; Walter G. Park; Irving M. Pike; Joseph Romagnuolo; William A. Rutala

i d t i i t i t f o This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Studies or reports that described fewer than 10 patients were excluded from analysis if multiple series with more than 10 patients addressing the same issue were available. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The original guideline was published in 1995 and last updated in 2002. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based both on the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from these guidelines.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2012

Adverse events of upper GI endoscopy

Tamir Ben-Menachem; G. Anton Decker; Dayna S. Early; Jerry Evans; Robert D. Fanelli; Deborah A. Fisher; Laurel Fisher; Norio Fukami; Joo Ha Hwang; Steven O. Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Terry L. Jue; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; Phyllis M. Malpas; John T. Maple; Ravi Sharaf; Jason A. Dominitz; Brooks D. Cash

● The beneficial role of GI endoscopy for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of many digestive diseases and cancer is well established. Like many sophisticated medical devices, the endoscope is a complex, reusable instrument that requires reprocessing before being used on subsequent patients. The most commonly used methods for reprocessing endoscopes result in high-level disinfection. To date, all published occurrences of pathogen transmission related to GI endoscopy have been associated with failure to follow established cleaning and disinfection/ sterilization guidelines or use of defective equipment. Despite the strong published data regarding the safety of endoscope reprocessing, concern over the potential for pathogen transmission during endoscopy has raised questions about the best methods for disinfection or sterilization of these devices between patient uses. To this end, in 2003, the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America collaborated with multiple physician and nursing organizations, infection prevention and control organizations, federal and state agencies, and industry leaders to develop evidence-based guidelines for reprocessing GI endoscopes.1,2 Since that ime, high-level disinfectants, automated reprocessing mahines, endoscopes and endoscopic accessories have all volved.3-6 However, the efficacy of decontamination and high-level disinfection is unchanged and the principles guiding both remain valid.7 Additional outbreaks of infection related to suboptimal infection prevention practices during endoscopy or lapses in endoscope reprocessing have been well publicized. A cluster of hepatitis C cases was attributed to grossly inappropriate intravenous medication and sedation practices.8 In numerous other instances, risk of infection transission has been linked to less willful, but incorrect, eprocessing as a result of unfamiliarity with endoscope hannels, accessories, and the specific steps required for eprocessing of attachments.9 Recent on-site ambulatory urgery center surveys confirm widespread gaps in infecion prevention practices.10 Given the ongoing occurrences of endoscopy-associated infections attributed to


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2011

The role of endoscopy in the management of choledocholithiasis

John T. Maple; Laurel Fisher; Norio Fukami; Joo Ha Hwang; Rajeev Jain; Terry L. Jue; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; Phyllis M. Malpas; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Ravi Sharaf; Jason A. Dominitz; Steven O. Ikenberry; Michelle A. Anderson; Vasundhara Appalaneni; G. Anton Decker; Dayna S. Early; John A. Evans; Robert D. Fanelli; Deborah A. Fisher

c f s a a e l This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this document, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. This document is based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time that the document was drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this document. This document may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. This document is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This document is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this document.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2010

The role of endoscopy in the management of patients with known and suspected colonic obstruction and pseudo-obstruction.

M. Edwyn Harrison; Michelle A. Anderson; Vasu Appalaneni; Subhas Banerjee; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Brooks D. Cash; Robert D. Fanelli; Laurel Fisher; Norio Fukami; Seng Ian Gan; Steven O. Ikenberry; Rajeev Jain; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; John T. Maple; Bo Shen; Trina Van Guilder; Todd H. Baron; Jason A. Dominitz

a t This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is given to results of large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations were based on reviewed studies and were graded on the strength of the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strength of individual recommendations is based n both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment f the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommenations are indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” hereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as we recommend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device o provide information that may assist endoscopists in roviding care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and hould not be construed as establishing a legal standard of are or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discourging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any articular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s ondition and available courses of action. Therefore, clincal considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a ourse of action that varies from these guidelines.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2010

The role of endoscopy in the management of patients with peptic ulcer disease

Subhas Banerjee; Brooks D. Cash; Jason A. Dominitz; Todd H. Baron; Michelle A. Anderson; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Laurel Fisher; Norio Fukami; M. Edwyn Harrison; Steven O. Ikenberry; Khalid M. Khan; Mary L. Krinsky; John T. Maple; Robert D. Fanelli; Laura Strohmeyer

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of astrointestinal endoscopy in common clinical situations. he Standards of Practice Committee of the American ociety for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared his text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medcal literature was performed by using PubMed. Addiional references were obtained from the bibliographies of he identified articles and from recommendations of exert consultants. When little or no data exist from well esigned prospective trials, emphasis is given to results rom large series and reports from recognized experts. uidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on critical review of the available data and expert consenus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further conrolled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of his guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary o account for changes in technology, new data, or other spects of clinical practice. The recommendations are ased on reviewed studies and are graded on the quality f the supporting evidence (Table 1).1 The strengths of ndividual recommendations are based both upon the ggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anicipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations re indicated by phrases such as “we suggest,” whereas tronger recommendations are typically stated as “we recmmend.” This guideline is intended to be an educational device o provide information that may assist endoscopists in roviding care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and hould not be construed as establishing a legal standard of are or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discourging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any articular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s ondition and available courses of action. Therefore, clincal considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a ourse of action that varies from these guidelines.


Gastrointestinal Endoscopy | 2013

Endoscopic mucosal tissue sampling

Ravi Sharaf; Amandeep K. Shergill; Robert D. Odze; Mary L. Krinsky; Norio Fukami; Rajeev Jain; Vasundhara Appalaneni; Michelle A. Anderson; Tamir Ben-Menachem; Vinay Chandrasekhara; Krishnavel V. Chathadi; G. Anton Decker; Dana S. Early; John A. Evans; Robert D. Fanelli; Deborah A. Fisher; Laurel Fisher; Kimberly Foley; Joo Ha Hwang; Terry L. Jue; Steven O. Ikenberry; Khalid M. Khan; Jennifer Lightdale; Phyllis M. Malpas; John T. Maple; Shabana F. Pasha; John R. Saltzman; Jason A. Dominitz; Brooks D. Cash

This is one of a series of statements discussing the use of GI endoscopy in common clinical situations. The Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) prepared this text. In preparing this guideline, a search of the medical literature was performed by using PubMed. Additional references were obtained from the bibliographies of the identified articles and from recommendations of expert consultants. When few or no data exist from well-designed prospective trials, emphasis is placed on results from large series and reports from recognized experts. Guidelines for appropriate use of endoscopy are based on a critical review of the available data and expert consensus at the time the guidelines are drafted. Further controlled clinical studies may be needed to clarify aspects of this guideline. This guideline may be revised as necessary to account for changes in technology, new data, or other aspects of clinical practice. The recommendations are based on reviewed studies and are graded on the quality of the supporting evidence (Table 1). The strength of individual recommendations is based on both the aggregate evidence quality and an assessment of the anticipated benefits and harms. Weaker recommendations are indicated by phrases such as ‘‘we suggest,’’ whereas stronger recommendations are typically stated as ‘‘we recommend.’’ This guideline is intended to be an educational device to provide information that may assist endoscopists in providing care to patients. This guideline is not a rule and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment. Clinical decisions in any particular case involve a complex analysis of the patient’s condition and available courses of action. Therefore, clinical considerations may lead an endoscopist to take a course of action that varies from this guideline. Upper GI endoscopy has largely replaced upper GI barium x-ray series for the evaluation of upper GI tract disease or symptoms because it allows direct visualization, tissue acquisition, and therapeutic interventions. This guideline is an update of a previous ASGE document and defines the role of upper GI endoscopy in the diagno-

Collaboration


Dive into the Mary L. Krinsky's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John T. Maple

University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Khalid M. Khan

MedStar Georgetown University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Norio Fukami

Anschutz Medical Campus

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Steven O. Ikenberry

Indiana University Bloomington

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Tamir Ben-Menachem

Brigham and Women's Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge