11. Appropriateness of colonoscopy: inflammatory bowel disease

Appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening: appraisal of evidence by experts

OBJECTIVE

. To evaluate how the level of evidence perceived by an international panel of experts was concordant with the level of evidence found in the literature, to compare experts perceived level of evidence to their appropriateness scores, and to compare appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy between experts and an evidence-based approach.

DESIGN

Comparison of expert panel opinions and systematic literature review regarding the level of evidence and appropriateness of colonoscopy indications.

PARTICIPANTS

European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy multidisciplinary experts from 14 European countries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Concordance and weighted kappa coefficient between level of evidence as perceived by the experts' and that found in the literature, and between panel- and literature-based appropriateness categories.

RESULTS

Experts overestimated the level of published evidence of 57 indications. Concordance between the level of evidence perceived by the experts and the actual level of evidence found in the literature was 36% (weighted kappa 0.18). Indications for colonoscopy were reported to be appropriate, uncertain, and inappropriate by the experts in 54, 19, and 27% of the cases, and by the literature in 37, 46, and 17% of the cases. A 46% agreement (weighted kappa 0.29) was found between literature-based and experts' appropriateness criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts often overestimated the level of evidence on which they based their decisions. However, rarely did the experts' judgement completely disagree with the literature, although concordance between panel- and literature-based appropriateness was only fair. A more explicit discussion of existing evidence should be undertaken with the experts before they evaluate appropriateness criteria.

Proposal of a new clinical index predictive of endoscopic severity in ulcerative colitis

Assessment of disease activity by clinical parameters in ulcerative colitis is still controversial. Different clinical indexes have been proposed. Colonoscopy provides detailed information on mucosal damage. The aim of this study was to identify, among 21 clinical and laboratory parameters, which were predictive of endoscopic activity. We included 137 consecutive patients with ulcerative colitis who underwent colonoscopy, clinical examination, and blood tests within 4 weeks. Endoscopic severity was recorded using a simple score (range, 0-30). The multiple stepwise regression coefficient of each significant variable predictive of mucosal damage was used to develop a new activity index predictive of endoscopic appearance (Endoscopic-Clinical Correlation Index; ECCI). We tested the ability of our score to discriminate patients with severe endoscopic disease, calculating the area under the receiver operator characteristic curve, and we compared it to activity indexes proposed by other authors. Endoscopic severity was significantly influenced by four parameters: bloody stool, nocturnal bowel movements, body temperature >37.5 degrees C, and serum albumin. The new scoring system was calculated as ECCI = {[serum albumin x (-26)] + (bloody stool x 17) + (nocturnal bowel movements x 16) + [fever (0 or 1) x 39]} + 107. The ECCI accurately identified patients with severe endoscopic disease in our sample (sensitivity = 81%, specificity = 95%). In conclusion, the ECCI should be useful in clinical practice because it is simple and strongly related to endoscopic activity.