...
首页> 外文期刊>Endoscopy: Journal for Clinical Use Biopsy and Technique >Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: A prospective study
【24h】

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

机译:欧洲胃肠道内窥镜检查专家小组(EPAGE)II标准在开放获取单元中的临床验证:一项前瞻性研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

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 58.913.1 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 1.223.13; P<0.005). Sensitivity and negative predictive value of EPAGE II criteria for detecting significant lesions were 93.1% (95%CI 90%96%) and 75.5% (95%CI 67%84%), respectively, whereas for advanced neoplastic lesions these values were 98.0% (95%CI 95%100%) and 98.0% (95% CI 95%100%), respectively. Adherence to EPAGE II recommendations was an independent predictor of finding a significant lesion (OR 1.93, 95%CI 1.203.11; P=0.007). Conclusions: EPAGE II is a simple, valid score for detecting inappropriate colonoscopies in clinical practice.
机译:背景和研究目的:欧洲胃肠内镜适当性专家组(EPAGE I)标准最近进行了更新(EPAGE II),但尚无前瞻性研究在临床实践中使用这些标准。当前研究的目的是在开放式内窥镜检查单元中验证EPAGE II标准。患者和方法:前瞻性观察研究是在三级医疗转诊中心的开放式内窥镜科进行的。在2009年9月至2010年2月之间,对连续的门诊患者(n = 1004;平均年龄58.913.1岁; 45%的男性)进行了诊断性结肠镜检查。根据EPAGE II标准评估了结肠镜检查的适当性,以及适当性与两次转诊之间的关系医生检查并检查了重大病变。 EPAGE II标准在评估适当性方面的有效性通过检测重大病变的敏感性,特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值来衡量。结果:956例患者达到了结肠镜盲肠插管(95.2%)。大多数转诊医生是肠胃科医生(58.0%),最常见的适应症是大肠癌(CRC)筛查(35.2%)。 EPAGE II标准适用于968例患者(96.4%);这些患者中,有778例(80.4%)适当适应症,有102例(10.5%)不适当,有88例(9.1%)不明确。根据EPAGE II标准具有适当或不确定适应症的患者比具有不适当适应症的患者具有更多相关的内窥镜检查结果(38.8%vs. 24.5%; OR 1.95,95%CI 1.223.13; P <0.005)。 EPAGE II标准检测重大病变的敏感性和阴性预测值分别为93.1%(95%CI 90%96%)和75.5%(95%CI 67%84%),而对于晚期肿瘤性病变,这些值为98.0% (95%CI 95%100%)和98.0%(95%CI 95%100%)。坚持EPAGE II建议是发现明显病变的独立预测因子(OR 1.93,95%CI 1.203.11; P = 0.007)。结论:EPAGE II是在临床实践中检测不适当结肠镜检查的简单有效分数。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号