Improving the selection of patients for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

Use of alarm features in predicting significant endoscopic findings in Nigerian patients with dyspepsia

Introduction

Dyspepsia is prevalent in the community. Guidelines recommend early endoscopy in dyspeptic patients who are older than 55 years, or have alarm features. There is a lack of data on endoscopy in patients with alarm features in Nigeria.

Methods

A retrospective study of the endoscopic findings in adults with dyspepsia and alarm features, between August 1^st 2017 and July 31^st 2018 in Lagos, Nigeria. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences, version 23.0. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the alarm features were calculated.

Results

One hundred and fifty-nine gastroscopies were performed during this period, mean age was 47.8 (±14.4) years, 49.1% were male. Dyspepsia was the commonest indication for endoscopy (80.5%), 60.2% of the dyspeptics had at least one alarm feature. The most frequent dyspeptic symptom was epigastric pain/burning sensation (75%), while the commonest alarm features were recent onset dyspepsia in a patient over 45 years (79%) and unexplained weight loss (28.6%). Endoscopy was normal in 26%. The most frequent significant endoscopic findings were gastritis (49%) and gastric ulcer (17%) and they were not associated with alarm features. Upper gastrointestinal bleeding, persistent vomiting and odynophagia were specific for significant endoscopic findings. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the alarm features were 65%, 49%, 71% and 41% respectively.

Conclusion

Patients with dyspepsia and upper gastrointestinal bleeding, persistent vomiting or odynophagia, should be referred for prompt upper GI endoscopy.

The diagnostic yield of open-access endoscopy of the upper gastrointestinal tract in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS

Since the introduction of open-access esophago-gastroduodenoscopy (OAE) there is an increase in the total number of performed OAEs whilst the frequency of clinical relevant findings has decreased. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriate use and the diagnostic yield of OAE in the Netherlands and to determine which patient variables are able to predict a malignant finding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of all referrals for diagnostic OAE between October 2012 and October 2016 at the Northwest Clinics was performed. The indications were recorded from the referral letter and were classified as "appropriate" or "inappropriate" according to the NHG guideline. Logistic regression was used to detect significant predictive variables for a malignancy.

RESULTS

A total of 2006 patients were included, of whom 59.6 % had an 'appropriate' referral indication. The diagnostic yield of finding a clinical relevant finding was significantly higher for OAEs with an "appropriate" referral indication. Independent risk factors for malignancy were alarm symptoms, age and male gender with a combined AUC of 0.868.

CONCLUSIONS

Only 3.8 % of the malignancies would be missed by strict adherence to the guideline. This indicates that the open-access system in the Netherlands works well. Further improvement of the system can be achieved by only accepting appropriate indications for OAE and by treating patients under the age of 40 without OAE. We showed that a risk-prediction model based on the variables age, alarm symptoms and male gender is a good predictor of malignant finding.

Appropriateness of Indications of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and its Association With Positive Finding

INTRODUCTION

Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy is a frequently advised investigation for upper abdominal symptoms. Studies have questioned the appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and have shown that inappropriate indications range from 5% to 49%. The unnecessary upper gastrointestinal endoscopy expose patients to the risk. The number of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is rising in our region and we assume so is the number of unnecessary upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. With an aim to find out the appropriateness of the indications of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and compare its association with positive findings, we conducted a cross-sectional descriptive study.

METHODS

All patients undergoing diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy during study period were included in the study. Appropriateness of indications for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy was defined as per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria as "appropriate" and "inappropriate". Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings were classified as "significant" and "insignificant" based on endoscopy findings. The extent of this association between appropriateness of indications and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy findings was expressed as the odds ratio of finding a relevant diagnosis in patients with an ''appropriate'' indication compared with those with an 'inappropriate'' indication.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included in the study. Fifty- two (65.8%) of the indications were considered appropriate as per American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines. Thirty-three (63.5%) of the appropriate indications has clinically significant finding as compared to seven (25.9%) of inappropriate indication with an odds ratio of 4.962 (95% CI:1.773 - 13.890, P=0.002) which is statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate indications have significantly higher rates of clinically significant findings. Use of guidelines may decrease the number of unnecessary procedures.

Performance of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy guidelines for dyspepsia in Saudi population: Prospective observational study

AIM: To evaluate adherence of primary care physicians (PCPs) to international guidelines when referring patients for upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE), evaluate the importance of alarm symptoms and the performance of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines in a Saudi population.

METHODS: A prospective, observational cross-sectional study on dyspeptic patients undergoing UGE who were referred by PCPs over a 4 mo period. Referrals were classified as appropriate or inappropriate according to adherence to ASGE guidelines.

RESULTS: Total of 221 dyspeptic patients was enrolled; 161 patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean age was 40.3 years (SD ± 18.1). Females comprised 70.1%. Alarm symptoms included low hemoglobin level (39%), weight loss (18%), vomiting (16%), loss of appetite (16%), difficulty swallowing (3%), and gastrointestinal bleeding (3%). Abnormal endoscopy findings included gastritis (52%), duodenitis (10%), hiatus hernia (7.8%), features suggestive of celiac disease (6.5%), ulcers (3.9%), malignancy (2.6%) and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD: 17%). Among patients who underwent UGE, 63% met ASGE guidelines, and 50% had abnormal endoscopic findings. Endoscopy was not indicated in remaining 37% of patients. Among the latter group, endoscopy was normal in 54% of patients. There was no difference in proportion of abnormal endoscopic findings between two groups (P = 0.639).

CONCLUSION: Dyspeptic patients had a low prevalence of important endoscopic lesions, and none of the alarm symptoms could significantly predict abnormal endoscopic findings.

A nine-year audit of open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures: results and experience of a single centre

BACKGROUND

The appropriateness and safety of open-access endoscopy are very important issues as its use continues to increase.

OBJECTIVE

To present a review of a nine-year experience with open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with respect to indications, diagnostic efficacy, safety and diseases diagnosed.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational case series of all patients who underwent open-access endoscopy between January 2000 and December 2008 was conducted. Indications were classified as appropriate or not appropriate according to American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines. Endoscopic diagnoses were based on widely accepted criteria. Major complication rates were assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 20,620 patients with a mean age of 58 years were assessed, of whom 11,589 (56.2%) were women and 9031 (43.8%) were men. Adherence to ASGE indications led to statistically significant, clinically relevant findings. The most common indications in patients older than age 45 years of age were dyspepsia (28.5%) and anemia (19.7%) in the ASGE-appropriate group, and dyspepsia in patients younger than 45 years of age without therapy trial (6.6%) in the nonappropriate group. Of the examinations, 38.57% were normal. Hiatal hernia and nonerosive gastritis were the most common findings. Important diagnoses such as malignancies and duodenal ulcers would have been missed if endoscopies were performed only according to appropriateness. There were only two major complications and no mortalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Open-access upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is a safe and effective system. More relevant findings were found when adhering to the ASGE guidelines. However, using these guidelines as the sole determining factor in whether to perform an endoscopy is not advisable because many clinically relevant diagnoses may be overlooked.

Impact of the Rome II paediatric criteria on the appropriateness of the upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in children

BACKGROUND

The demand for paediatric gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy has increased, resulting in a significant rise of overall costs.

AIM

To assess the clinical impact of the Rome II criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders when selecting paediatric patients who underwent GI endoscopy.

METHODS

The indications and findings of GI endoscopic procedures performed before and after the publication of the Rome II criteria were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

Upper GI endoscopy was performed in 1124 children, whereas colonoscopy was performed in 500 subjects. A total of 607 (54%) oesophago-gastro-duodenoscopies (OGDs) were positive and 517 (46%) were negative, whereas 306 (61.1%) colonoscopies were positive and 194 (38.9%) were negative. Of the 1624 procedures, 26% were considered inappropriate according to the Rome II criteria. Inappropriate procedures decreased significantly after publication of the Rome II criteria (OR, 3.7; 95% CI, 1.8-7.5). Of 1202 appropriate GI endoscopies, 502 OGD (62.7%) were significantly contributive, compared with only 105 (32.5%) of the 323 inappropriate procedures (OR, 3.5; 95% CI, 2.6-4.6), whereas 265 (65.8%) colonoscopies were significantly contributive, compared with only 41 (42.3%) of the 97 inappropriate procedures (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.1).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders makes a significant positive impact, they should reduce unnecessary paediatric GI endoscopy.

Appropriateness guidelines and predictive rules to select patients for upper endoscopy: a nationwide multicenter study

OBJECTIVES

Selecting patients appropriately for upper endoscopy (EGD) is crucial for efficient use of endoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare different clinical strategies and statistical methods to select patients for EGD, namely appropriateness guidelines, age and/or alarm features, and multivariate and artificial neural network (ANN) models.

METHODS

A nationwide, multicenter, prospective study was undertaken in which consecutive patients referred for EGD during a 1-month period were enrolled. Before EGD, the endoscopist assessed referral appropriateness according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) guidelines, also collecting clinical and demographic variables. Outcomes of the study were detection of relevant findings and new diagnosis of malignancy at EGD. The accuracy of the following clinical strategies and predictive rules was compared: (i) ASGE appropriateness guidelines (indicated vs. not indicated), (ii) simplified rule (>or=45 years or alarm features vs. <45 years without alarm features), (iii) logistic regression model, and (iv) ANN models.

RESULTS

A total of 8,252 patients were enrolled in 57 centers. Overall, 3,803 (46%) relevant findings and 132 (1.6%) new malignancies were detected. Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the simplified rule were similar to that of the ASGE guidelines for both relevant findings (82%/26%/0.55 vs. 88%/27%/0.52) and cancer (97%/22%/0.58 vs. 98%/20%/0.58). Both logistic regression and ANN models seemed to be substantially more accurate in predicting new cases of malignancy, with an AUC of 0.82 and 0.87, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A simple predictive rule based on age and alarm features is similarly effective to the more complex ASGE guidelines in selecting patients for EGD. Regression and ANN models may be useful in identifying a relatively small subgroup of patients at higher risk of cancer.

Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of EGD: a prospective study in a large Asian hospital

BACKGROUND

The appropriateness has become an important issue as the use of EGD becomes more widespread. No study of the appropriateness of EGD has been performed in the Asia-Pacific region. This study examined the appropriateness of EGD in a large Asian hospital by using the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2000 guidelines. A secondary aim was to correlate appropriateness with the presence of positive findings at EGD.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted of consecutive diagnostic EGDs performed at a university-affiliated, teaching hospital, which has an open-access endoscopy system for doctors who work in the hospital. The main indication(s) for EGD was recorded and assessed as appropriate or inappropriate by using American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy criteria. EGD findings were recorded and classified as positive or negative. Referrals were categorized as being from endoscopists, primary care physicians, and others.

RESULTS

Of 1076 referrals for EGD, 88.3% were deemed appropriate. The group with the highest rate of appropriate referral was endoscopists (90.2%), followed by primary care physicians (89.6%) and "others" (81.9%). The rate of appropriate referrals was significantly higher for endoscopists and primary care physicians compared with "others" (respectively, p=0.001 and p=0.022). The most common appropriate indication was "upper abdominal distress that persists despite an appropriate trial of therapy" (35.4%). The most common inappropriate indication was "dyspepsia in patients aged 45 years or below without adequate empirical medical treatment" (48.4%); 42.2% with an appropriate indication had positive findings compared with only 25.6% of those with inappropriate indications (p=0.006). On multivariate analysis, the following were identified as independent predictive factors for positive findings at EGD: male gender (p=0.005), age over 45 years (p=0.011), smoking (p=0.005), none/primary education (p<0.001), and secondary education (p=0.026).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportion of patients referred for open-access EGD with an appropriate indication(s) was high for all doctor groups in a large university-affiliated medical center in Asia. EGDs performed for appropriate indications had a higher yield of positive findings. Independent predictive factors of positive findings were male gender, age over 45 years, lower education level, and referral by an endoscopist.

[Prospective validation of a clinical scoring system for the diagnosis of organic dyspepsia]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Predictive symptomatic scoring models have been proposed to select patients with dyspepsia, who may be candidates to endoscopy. In a previous study performed by gastroentrologists from our group, we obtained three scales of symptoms to predict organic dyspepsia, peptic ulcer and esophagitis, respectively. Here we analyze the reproducibility of those scoring models of symptoms when used either by other gastroenterologists or general practitioners.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

It was a clinical prospective study of 230 patients from the Viladecans hospital area (120 from primary healthcare and 110 from the gastroenterologist's consultation). The three validation scales were performed in each patient. Then, we performed a diagnostic gastroscopy which allowed to classify patients into those with organic dyspepsia (ulcer, esophagitis, cancer) or those with functional dyspepsia. We calculated the overall predictive accuracy for the gastroenterologist and the general practitioner and for the three diagnoses (organic dyspepsia, ulcer or esophagitis) using the C statistic.

RESULTS

Discriminative capacities were 0.75 and 0.82 for organic dyspepsia, 0.78 and 0.86 for ulcer disease, and 0.78 and 0.82 for esophagitis, for the general practitioner and the gastroenterologist, respectively. In this validation study, the best cut-off value, namely the one combining good sensitivity and specificity, was found to be 7.

CONCLUSIONS

A correct predictive capacity of the symptomatic score models when used by other gastroenterologists or by primary healthcare practioners confirms its reproducibility and transferability. The use of predictive symptomatic score models in everyday clinical practice can allow to rationalize the referral for endoscopy in our local setting.

Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy system: a prospective observational study based on the Maastricht guidelines

AIM

To test the appropriateness of referrals for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Campania, Italy, using the criteria of the Maastricht Consensus.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing endoscopy during a 1-week period in 21 Endoscopy Services were considered prospectively. The reasons for endoscopy were dyspeptic symptoms, history of peptic ulcer and assessment after treatment. The age, sex, symptoms, history of peptic ulcer (previous endoscopic or radiographic examinations and treatment), endoscopic diagnosis and H. pylori status were recorded. The indications for endoscopy were evaluated according to the Maastricht guidelines.

RESULTS

Two hundred and sixteen of 706 patients presented with reflux symptoms, 430 with dyspeptic symptoms, 38 with alarm symptoms and 22 with atypical symptoms. Endoscopy was normal in 376 cases (53.2%); duodenal ulcer was found in 219, gastric ulcer in 45, oesophagitis in 82 and gastric cancer in six. All patients with cancer were older than 45 years, and four presented with alarm symptoms. In 398 cases (56%), endoscopy was considered not to be indicated: 250 patients with a previous diagnosis of ulcer without a change in symptoms, 38 patients in order to confirm eradication and 110 patients younger than 45 years with dyspepsia without alarm symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of endoscopic examinations could be avoided by following the guidelines of the Maastricht Consensus. In order to reduce endoscopic workload, strategies for educating physicians should be pursued.

Appropriateness of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a hospital-based study

Aims of this study were to evaluate: (1) whether upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) is used appropriately according to the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines in a hospital setting and (2) whether there is any relationship between appropriateness of UGE and the presence of lesions detected by endoscopy. Indications and endoscopic findings for 734 consecutive UGE performed in 697 inpatients were retrospectively evaluated using ASGE and BSG guidelines to determine appropriateness of referrals. UGE showing endoscopic findings that had direct therapeutic or prognostic consequences were classified as "positive"; the other UGEs were classified as "negative." In all, 46% of UGEs were "positive," 54% "negative," and 61.7% and 23.2% of UGEs were inappropriate according to ASGE and BSG guidelines, respectively (P < 0.001). The probability of finding a positive endoscopy was significantly higher in UGE rated as appropriate than in those rated as inappropriate on the basis of ASGE guidelines (P < 0.001), but not on the basis of BSG guidelines. Endoscopies rated as inappropriate according to ASGE and BSG criteria showed a positive finding in 37.3% and 42.3% of cases, respectively (not significant difference). Multivariate analysis showed that the positive finding is directly related to age (P < 0.05), male gender (P < 0.001), prior UGE (P < 0.05), hematemesis (P < 0.001), and inversely related with upper abdominal pain (P < 0.01) and dyspepsia (P < 0.05). In hospitalized patients, UGE is frequently used for inappropriate indications, according to both ASGE and BSG guidelines. However, the actual clinical usefulness of appropriateness criteria, such as those proposed by ASGE and BSG, is questionable, as their strict observance could lead to missing a large number of significant endoscopic findings.

Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria?

BACKGROUND

Increasing the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is important to improve quality of care while at the same time containing costs. This study explored whether detailed explicit appropriateness criteria significantly improve the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients referred for upper GI endoscopy at 6 centers (1 university hospital, 2 district hospitals, 3 gastroenterology practices) were prospectively included over a 6-month period. After controlling for disease presentation and patient characteristics, the relationship between the appropriateness of upper GI endoscopy, as assessed by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method, and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2088 patients (60% outpatients, 57% men) were included. Analysis was restricted to the 1681 patients referred for diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. Forty-six percent of upper GI endoscopies were judged to be appropriate, 15% uncertain, and 39% inappropriate by the explicit criteria. No cancer was found in upper GI endoscopies judged to be inappropriate. Upper GI endoscopies judged appropriate or uncertain yielded significantly more relevant lesions (60%) than did those judged to be inappropriate (37%; odds ratio 2.6: 95% CI [2.2, 3.2]). In multivariate analyses, the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy was significantly influenced by appropriateness, patient gender and age, treatment setting, and symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Upper GI endoscopies performed for appropriate indications resulted in detecting significantly more clinically relevant lesions than did those performed for inappropriate indications. In addition, no upper GI endoscopy that resulted in a diagnosis of cancer was judged to be inappropriate. The use of such criteria improves patient selection for upper GI endoscopy and can thus contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of care. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:333-41).

The effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia: a qualitative systematic review

PURPOSE

Dyspepsia is a common primary care condition, yet its optimal management is poorly defined. We reviewed the literature to answer the following questions about patients with dyspepsia: 1) Does endoscopy result in improved patient outcomes? 2) Does endoscopy result in a reduction in the use of subsequent medical resources? 3) Does endoscopy result in improved medical decision making? 4) Is endoscopy cost effective?

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of English-language articles in the MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and EMBASE computerized bibliographic databases from January 1985 to July 1998. We included all studies, including decision analyses, with information about the effectiveness of endoscopy, as measured by its impact on patient outcomes, resource utilization, clinical decision making, or cost effectiveness. Two independent reviewers abstracted data from each study, and assessed its methodologic quality.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria. For 3 of the 4 clinical questions, the weight of evidence does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy. The largest randomized clinical trial comparing endoscopy with empiric therapy demonstrates equivalent symptoms and quality of life at 1 year, with increased patient satisfaction and lower costs for initial endoscopy. Suboptimal study design, including lack of appropriate comparison groups, limit studies measuring the impact of endoscopy on resource utilization and decision-making. Decision analyses indicate that noninvasive H pylori testing followed by anti-H pylori therapy or empiric antisecretory therapy is more cost effective than initial endoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

With the exception of one randomized clinical trial, the preponderance of available data does not support the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia. Prospective clinical trials that evaluate patient outcomes and resource utilization, and take H pylori status into account, are needed to determine the effectiveness of endoscopy in the management of dyspepsia.

Does an open access system properly utilize endoscopic resources?

BACKGROUND

In an effort to maintain procedure volumes and control consultation costs, many gastrointestinal endoscopists and primary care providers have implemented systems of open access endoscopy. In these systems, specialists in digestive diseases perform endoscopy without prior consultation. The purpose of this study is to determine if indications for upper endoscopic procedures requested in an open access system conform to national practice guidelines and to establish the yield of diagnostic information relevant for patient care in this system.

METHODS

Procedural indications and results for 3715 upper endoscopic procedures performed in an open access system were recorded in a computer database. The practice guideline "Appropriate Use of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy" (AUGE) of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy was used to determine appropriateness of procedural indications.

RESULTS

Eighty-four percent of procedures were performed for indications listed in the AUGE, and 59% resulted in findings relevant to patient care. Specialists requested endoscopy more frequently for "approved" indications than did nonspecialists (p = .004) and more frequently had findings relevant to patient care (p < .001). Findings relevant to patient care are significantly more frequent for some indications listed in the AUGE compared to others (p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to practice guidelines can and does occur in an open access system. Specialists request endoscopy more frequently for appropriate indications compared to nonspecialists and have a higher yield of information relevant to patient care. Further refinement and better definition of some indications within the AUGE are needed to increase the clinical utility of this document.

Guidelines for dyspepsia management in general practice using focus groups

BACKGROUND

There is a paucity of published guidelines on managing dyspepsia in general practice. Existing guidelines emphasize the role of investigations and drugs rather than management approaches. Focus groups are a means of uncovering the way in which the participants think and work in the pragmatic-setting, and have not previously been formally used in creating guidelines.

AIM

To develop guidelines for the management of dyspepsia and to assess the use of focus groups of general practitioners (GPs) in order to do so.

METHOD

Initial evidence-based guidelines were proposed by a group of four GPs with an audit facilitator, and used for discussion in three focus groups using a standard format. An anthropological analysis of the proceedings led to modifications of the original guidelines, based on knowledge, perceptions and attitudes. The study was set in three distinct locations involving 30 GPs. The outcome measures consisted of feedback, categorized by types of responses, from the analysis of the focus groups and the creation of guidelines.

RESULTS

The resulting guidelines were patient centred and based on the principles of good consultation. They encompassed patients' fears and doctors' clinical uncertainties, and allowed flexibility in the individual patient's management. The focus group methodology exposed a substantial number of GPs to guideline development, and had the added benefits of dissemination, peer review and educational challenge.

CONCLUSION

It was possible to develop guidelines for dyspepsia using focus groups. The methodology had the added benefits of ownership, peer review, exposure of educational gaps and locality factors, and dissemination of good practice. It included steps from evidence review to implementation strategies. The development of this technique could lead to a strategy towards the creation and application of evidence-based and professionally acceptable clinical guidelines and practice on a locality basis nationally.

Predicting endoscopic diagnosis in the dyspeptic patient. The value of predictive score models

BACKGROUND

Score models to predict endoscopic diagnosis in dyspepsia may compensate for the unreliable clinical diagnosis. This study aimed to construct and test score models designed to predict diagnosis in dyspepstic patients managed in primary care.

METHODS

Three models to predict organic dyspepsia, major dyspepsia, or peptic ulcer were constructed by regression analysis of clinical data from 1026 consecutive dyspeptic patients referred for endoscopy. The models were tested in 207 patients in primary care, who were potential candidates for endoscopy. Validation experiments were analysed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves.

RESULTS

Significant losses of predictive power were found for all models when applied to primary care patients, and no model could be used as a reliable decision support instrument in primary care.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictive score models developed in patients referred for endoscopy are not reliable when applied to patients in primary care who are potential candidates for endoscopy. Future models should be constructed and validated in unselected primary care populations.

Overuse of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in a country with open-access endoscopy: a prospective study in primary care

BACKGROUND

This prospective observational study was aimed at evaluating the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) in primary care in a country with open access to and high availability of the procedure.

METHODS

Outpatients were consecutively included in two clinical settings: Setting A (20 primary care physicians during 4 weeks) and B (university-based outpatient clinic during 3 weeks). In patients undergoing UGE, appropriateness of referral was judged by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method.

RESULTS

Patient visits (8135) were assessed. Six hundred eleven patients complained of upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Physicians decided to perform UGE in 63 of these patients. Twenty-five (40%) of the endoscopies were rated appropriate, 7 (11%) equivocal, and 31 (49%) inappropriate. Overuse of UGE occurred in 5.1% (setting A: 4.7%; setting B:6.5%; p = 0.39) of the patients who presented with upper gastrointestinal symptoms. The decision to perform UGE in previously untreated dyspeptic patients was the most common clinical situation resulting in overuse.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate use of UGE is high in Switzerland. However, to better reflect primary care decision making, overuse should be related not only to patients referred for a medical test, but also to the number of patients who complain of the symptoms that would be investigated by the procedure.

Appropriateness of indications for diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: association with relevant endoscopic disease

BACKGROUND

Since the institution of open access endoscopy units there has been a considerable increase of referrals for UGI examinations. Therefore, guidelines for the appropriate use of UGI endoscopy are needed.

METHODS

The outcome of first diagnostic UGI endoscopy was prospectively assessed for several referral indications in a consecutive series of 2900 patients. Indications were judged "appropriate" when significantly (p < 0.01) associated with clinically "relevant" endoscopic findings.

RESULTS

The proportion of relevant disease for various indications was as follows: signs of UGI bleeding (42.2%); history of peptic ulcer (40.5%); dysphagia (31.9%), short-term (24.4%), and without therapy (20.9%). Relevant endoscopic findings were observed in 21.0% of dyspeptic patients aged 45 years or less, and in 25.3% of those older than 45 years of age.

CONCLUSIONS

The generally approved alarm symptoms should be a reason to perform endoscopy without hesitation. Dyspeptic symptoms, despite adequate empiric treatment, as well as first dyspeptic symptoms in patients older than 45 years should also be a reason for endoscopic investigation. Our results support the strategy to treat patients younger than 45 years who have isolated dyspepsia by a limited course of antipeptic agents, provided that they are seen for re-evaluation within 4 to 6 weeks.

Appropriate use of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy--a prospective audit. Steering Group of the Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Audit Committee

Work by this group has shown that there is a wide range of opinion as to patients' suitability for endoscopy. In a recent study, 1297 questionnaires were sent to a random selection of doctors, including 350 general physicians, 400 surgeons, 477 gastroenterologists, and 70 general practitioners. The respondent was asked to indicate whether or not he would refer the patient described by each case vignette for endoscopy. Depending on the indication, the positive referral rate varied from 4.5% to 99% overall, and from 4.5% to 63.8% for all those clinical situations that the working party felt to be inappropriate. A second study examined the appropriateness of 400 consecutive cases referred from four units within one health region; these cases were judged independently, and without conferring, by a panel of seven gastroenterologists. The same cases were rated by software that incorporated American opinion (the Rand criteria). Although only 45 (11%) of the cases were classed as inappropriate by the British panel, 120 cases (31%) assessed by the American software were rated inappropriate. These differences occurred largely because in the USA it is recommended that one month's antiulcer treatment be tried before considering endoscopy for dyspepsia and thus many referrals were seen as inappropriate by the American database. Of the 45 cases found to be inappropriate by the British doctors no important abnormality was found at endoscopy; whereas of 120 cases judged inappropriate by the Rand criteria, three duodenal and two gastric ulcers, and one gastric cancer were diagnosed at gastroscopy. This study attempts a quantitative assessment of inappropriate use and serves to encourage further work to define appropriateness.