AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Endoscopic Eradication Therapy of Barrett's Esophagus and Related Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Barrett's esophagus (BE) is the precursor to esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Endoscopic eradication therapy (EET) can be effective in eradicating BE and related neoplasia and has greater risk of harms and resource use than surveillance endoscopy. This clinical practice guideline aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. METHODS: The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence and make recommendations. The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients, conducted an evidence review, and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations regarding the use of EET in patients with BE under the following scenarios: presence of (1) high-grade dysplasia, (2) low-grade dysplasia, (3) no dysplasia, and (4) choice of stepwise endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) or focal EMR plus ablation, and (5) endoscopic submucosal dissection vs EMR. Clinical recommendations were based on the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 5 recommendations for the use of EET in BE and related neoplasia. Based on the available evidence, the panel made a strong recommendation in favor of EET in patients with BE high-grade dysplasia and conditional recommendation against EET in BE without dysplasia. The panel made a conditional recommendation in favor of EET in BE low-grade dysplasia; patients with BE low-grade dysplasia who place a higher value on the potential harms and lower value on the benefits (which are uncertain) regarding reduction of esophageal cancer mortality could reasonably select surveillance endoscopy. In patients with visible lesions, a conditional recommendation was made in favor of focal EMR plus ablation over stepwise EMR. In patients with visible neoplastic lesions undergoing resection, the use of either endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection was suggested based on lesion characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the indications for EET in the management of BE and related neoplasia. Guidance is also provided regarding the considerations surrounding implementation of EET. Providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient preferences. Limitations and gaps in the evidence are highlighted to guide future research opportunities.

Levels of evidence and grades of recommendation supporting European society for medical oncology clinical practice guidelines.

Background: The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) guidelines are among the most comprehensive and widely used clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) globally. However, the level of scientific evidence supporting ESMO CPG recommendations has not been systematically investigated. This study assessed ESMO CPG levels of evidence (LOE) and grades of recommendations (GOR), as well as their trends over time across various cancer settings. Methods: We manually extracted every recommendation with the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) classification from each CPG. We examined the distribution of LOE and GOR in all available ESMO CPG guidelines across different topics and cancer types. Results: Among the 1,823 recommendations in the current CPG, 30% were classified as LOE I, and 43% were classified as GOR A. Overall, there was a slight decrease in LOE I (-2%) and an increase in the proportion of GOR A (+1%) in the current CPG compared to previous versions. The proportion of GOR A recommendations based on higher levels of evidence such as randomized trials (LOE I-II) shows a decrease (71% vs. 63%, p = 0.009) while recommendations based on lower levels of evidence (LOE III-V) show an increase (29% vs. 37%, p = 0.01) between previous and current version. In the current versions, the highest proportion of LOE I (42%) was found in recommendations related to pharmacotherapy, while the highest proportion of GOR A recommendations was found in the areas of pathology (50%) and diagnostic (50%) recommendations. Significant variability in LOE I and GOR A recommendations and their changes over time was observed across different cancer types. Conclusion: One-third of the current ESMO CPG recommendations are supported by the highest level of evidence. More well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to increase the proportion of LOE I and GOR A recommendations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes for cancer patients.

Revisiting Level of Evidence Ratings in Plastic Surgery: A Call to Action.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine underpins medical and surgical practice, with level of evidence (LOE) being a key aspect that allows clinicians and researchers to better discriminate the methodological context by which studies are conducted and appropriately interpret their conclusions, and more specifically the strength of their recommendations. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to reassess the LOE of articles published in plastic surgery journals. METHODS: To assess the overall LOE of publications from January 1 to December 31, 2021, a review of the following plastic surgery journals was performed: Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ), Annals of Plastic Surgery (Annals), Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JRPAS), Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open (PRS GO). RESULTS: Of 3698 PUBMED articles, 1649 original articles and systematic reviews were analyzed. The average LOE for each journal was: ASJ 3.02 ± 0.94, Annals 3.49 ± 0.62, JPRAS 3.33 ± 0.77, PRS 2.91 ± 0.77, and PRS GO 3.45 ± 0.70. The collective average LOE was 3.28 ± 0.78. Only 4.4% were LOE 1 and 7.3% were LOE 2. Compared to past studies, PRS showed a significant LOE improvement (P = .0254), while ASJ and JPRAS saw nonsignificant changes; Annals experienced a significant decrease (P = .0092). CONCLUSIONS: ASJ and PRS showed the highest LOE among the journals analyzed. Despite this, low LOE studies remain prevalent in plastic surgery. This paper serves as a call to action for both researchers and academic journals to elevate the standard, offering several strategies to help improve the LOE in plastic surgery.

Influence of endocrine multidisciplinary tumor board on patient management and treatment decision making.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary Tumor Boards (MDT) are used to obtain input regarding cancer management. This study assessed the impact of our institutional Endocrine MDT. METHODS: MDT notes on patients with thyroid cancer treated during 2012-2018 were abstracted retrospectively from the electronic medical record. Management change (MC) was prospectively collected by the MDT coordinator. Biannual evaluations reviewed the impact of the MDT as observed by attendees. RESULTS: MC was recommended in 47 (15%) of 286 presentations, with additional imaging being the most frequent (43%). Presentation of recurrences were more likely to result in MC (24% vs. 13% initial, p = 0.03). Overall, 98% of attendees found the conference exceeded educational expectations. About 24% reported intending to use a more evidence/guideline-based approach after attending and this trend increased over time (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: MDT presentations led to a higher rate of MC particularly in recurrent TC patients and increased evidenced-based practice for attendees.

Appropriate use criteria for ancillary diagnostic testing in dermatopathology: New recommendations for 11 tests and 220 clinical scenarios from the American Society of Dermatopathology Appropriate Use Criteria Committee.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide patient-centered physician guidance in test selection. An initial set of AUC was reported by the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP) in 2018. AUC reflect evidence collected at single timepoints and may be affected by evolving evidence and experience. The objective of this study was to update and expand AUC for selected tests. METHODS: RAND/UCLA (RAND Corporation [Santa Monica, CA]/University of California Los Angeles) methodology used includes the following: (a) literature review; (b) review of previously rated tests and previously employed clinical scenarios; (c) selection of previously rated tests for new ratings; (d) development of new clinical scenarios; (e) selection of additional tests; (f) three rating rounds with feedback and group discussion after rounds 1 and 2. RESULTS: For 220 clinical scenarios comprising lymphoproliferative (light chain clonality), melanocytic (comparative genomic hybridization, fluorescence in situ hybridization, reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction, telomerase reverse transcriptase promoter), vascular disorders (MYC), and inflammatory dermatoses (periodic acid-Schiff, Gömöri methenamine silver), consensus by panel raters was reached in 172 of 220 (78%) scenarios, with 103 of 148 (70%) rated "usually appropriate" or "rarely appropriate" and 45 of 148 (30%), "appropriateness uncertain." LIMITATIONS: The study design only measures appropriateness. Cost, availability, test comparison, and additional clinical considerations are not measured. The possibility that the findings of this study may be influenced by the inherent biases of the dermatopathologists involved in the study cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: AUC are reported for selected diagnostic tests in clinical scenarios that occur in dermatopathology practice. Adhering to AUC may reduce inappropriate test utilization and improve healthcare delivery.

Facial Gender Surgery: Systematic Review and Evidence-Based Consensus Guidelines from the International Facial Gender Symposium.

BACKGROUND: Increasing societal acceptance of transgender people has led to broader availability of gender surgery and rapid growth in transition-related operations. Facial gender surgery aims to modify patients' facial features to be more congruent with their physical expression of gender, reducing gender dysphoria and improving quality of life. Growth in research and technique evolution has not kept pace with growth in clinical volume. Therefore, the first International Facial Gender Symposium was held at Johns Hopkins University in 2019, convening surgeons who perform facial gender surgery to share ideas and assess the state of clinical evidence. METHODS: To review the literature on facial gender surgery, the authors developed a search strategy for seven electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Gender Studies) through May of 2019, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses systematic review guidelines. RESULTS: Based on the English language literature and clinical experience, the authors suggest guidelines for screening, management, and appropriate surgical technique for patients undergoing facial gender surgery. They highlight facial gender surgery as a medically necessary intervention and identify shortcomings in current guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Facial gender surgery represents a complex array of craniofacial and soft-tissue procedures that require application of advanced skills and decision-making. Facial gender operations are not cosmetic, are medically necessary, and require development of new CPT codes specific to facial gender surgery. It is imperative to create educational programs and methods to define sufficient training for facial gender surgery surgeons. Research priorities include better procedural outcomes data, more quality-of-life studies, and insight into variation in both patient and procedural subgroups.

Discordant and inappropriate discordant recommendations in consensus and evidence based guidelines: empirical analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether alignment of strength of recommendations with quality of evidence differs in consensus based versus evidence based guidelines. DESIGN: Empirical analysis. DATA SOURCE: Guidelines developed by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) up to 27 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Recommendations were clearly categorised as consensus or evidence based, were separated from the remainder of the text, and included both the quality of evidence and the strength of the recommendations. DATA EXTRACTION: Paired authors independently extracted the recommendation characteristics, including type of recommendation (consensus or evidence based), grading system used for developing recommendations, strength of the recommendation, and quality of evidence. The study team also calculated the number of discordant recommendations (strong recommendations with low quality evidence) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (those that did not meet grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation criteria of appropriateness). RESULTS: The study included 12 ACC/AHA guidelines that generated 1434 recommendations and 69 ASCO guidelines that generated 1094 recommendations. Of the 504 ACC/AHA recommendations based on low quality evidence, 200 (40%) proved to be consensus based versus 304 (60%) evidence based; of the 404 ASCO recommendations based on low quality evidence, 292 (72%) were consensus based versus 112 (28%) that were evidence based. In both ACC/AHA and ASCO guidelines, the consensus approach yielded more discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: odds ratio 2.1, 95% confidence interval 1.5 to 3.1; ASCO: 2.9, 1.1 to 7.8) and inappropriate discordant recommendations (ACC/AHA: 2.6, 1.7 to 3.7; ASCO: 5.1, 1.6 to 16.0) than the evidence based approach. CONCLUSION: Consensus based guidelines produce more recommendations violating the evidence based medicine principles than evidence based guidelines. Ensuring appropriate alignment of quality of evidence with the strength of recommendations is key to the development of "trustworthy" guidelines.

Clinical practice guideline: evidence, recommendations and algorithm for the preoperative optimization of anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking.

Preoperative optimization has not been explored comprehensively in the surgical literature, as this responsibility has often been divided among surgery, anesthesia and medicine. We developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to summarize existing evidence and present diagnostic and treatment algorithms for use by surgeons caring for patients scheduled to undergo major elective surgery. We focus on 3 common comorbid conditions seen across surgical specialties - anemia, hyperglycemia and smoking - as these conditions increase complication rates in patients undergoing major surgery and can be optimized successfully as soon as 6-8 weeks before surgery. With the ability to address these conditions earlier in the patient journey, surgeons can positively affect patient outcomes. The aim of this guideline is to bring optimization in the preoperative period under the existing umbrella of evidence-based surgical care.

Opioid Prescribing after Carpal Tunnel Release: Analysis from the Michigan Collaborative Hand Initiative for Quality in Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the national practice patterns for postoperative opioid prescribing after carpal tunnel release, which is one of the most common surgical procedures performed. The authors sought to assess the rate of opioid prescribing after carpal tunnel release and patient-, surgeon-, and practice-level predictors of opioid prescriptions after surgery. METHODS: The authors conducted a cohort study from the Michigan Collaborative Hand Initiative for Quality in Surgery, a national consortium of nine practices with 33 surgeons who prospectively collect data for the purpose of quality improvement. Patients were included who underwent carpal tunnel release between July 1, 2019, and December 31, 2019. Multilevel logistic regression was used to determine practice and surgeon variation in postoperative opioid prescribing related to patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 648 patients with 792 operative hands, 52.9 percent were prescribed a postoperative opioid. After controlling for patient, surgeon, and practice characteristics, endoscopic carpal tunnel releases were associated with a decreased odds of receiving a postoperative opioid prescription compared to open carpal tunnel releases (OR, 0.19; 95 percent CI, 0.07 to 0.52). However, 57.4 percent of the variation in opioid prescribing was explained at the practice level, and 4.1 percent of the variation was explained at the surgeon level. CONCLUSIONS: Practice-level prescribing patterns play a substantial role in opioid prescribing. National efforts should consider development of evidence-based opioid prescribing recommendations for carpal tunnel release that target all prescribers, including trainees and advanced practice providers. In addition, endoscopic carpal tunnel release may offer an opportunity to minimize opioid prescribing. The authors recommend that providers encourage the use of nonopioid analgesia and limit opioid prescriptions after carpal tunnel release. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Principales recomendaciones de reanimación cardiopulmonar y atención cardiovascular de emergencia para el año 2020 / Best practice recommendations for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care for 2020

Las altas tasas de letalidad y mortalidad a causa del paro cardiorespiratorio por fibrilación ventricular son considerados un problema de salud pública, cobrando gran relevancia la posibilidad de que sean revertidos rápidamente con la presencia de profesionales capacitados o por personal "lego" actualizados en reanimación cardiopulmonar. El objetivo del presente artículo de revisión fue analizar las nuevas recomendaciones de la American Heart Association para reanimación cardiopulmonar y atención cardiovascular de emergencia para el año 2020.

High rates of lethality and mortality due to ventricular fibrillation cardiorespiratory arrest are considered a public health problem, Thus, the possibility of reversed quickly by trained professionals or updated "lego" staff in cardiopulmonary resuscitation is taking great relevance. The objective of this review article was to discuss the New Recommendations of the American Heart Association for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care for 2020.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Strategies to Improve Quality of Screening and Surveillance Colonoscopy: Expert Review.

The purpose of this American Gastroenterological Association Institute Clinical Practice Update was to review the available evidence and provide best practice advice regarding strategies to improve the quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy. This review is framed around 15 best practice advice statements regarding colonoscopy quality that were agreed upon by the authors, based on a review of the available evidence and published guidelines. This is not a formal systematic review and thus no formal rating of the quality of evidence or strength of recommendation has been carried out.