Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, iScan, linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff, Endocuff Vision, and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; iScan (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Analytical frameworks in colorectal cancer guidelines: development of methods for systematic reviews, their application and practical guidance for their use.

OBJECTIVES: Analytical frameworks are graphical representation of the key questions answered by a systematic review and can support the development of guideline recommendations. Our objectives were to a) conduct a systematic review to identify, describe and compare all analytical frameworks published as part of a systematic and guideline development process related to colorectal cancer (CRC), and b) to use this case study to develop guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews of analytical frameworks. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify eligible studies in Medline and Embase from 1996 until December 2020. We also manually searched guideline databases and websites to identify all guidelines and systematic reviews in CRC that used an analytical framework. We assessed the quality of the guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. The systematic review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration CRD42020172117. RESULTS: We screened 34,505 records and identified 1,166 guidelines and 3,127 systematic reviews on CRC of which five met our inclusion criteria. These five publications included four analytical frameworks in colorectal cancer (one update). We also describe our methodological approach to systematic reviews for analytical frameworks and underlying concepts for developing analytical framework using a bottom-up or top-down approach. CONCLUSION: Few guidelines and systematic reviews are utilizing analytical frameworks in the development of recommendations. Development of analytical frameworks should begin with a systematic search for existing analytical frameworks and follow a structured conceptual approach for their development to support guideline recommendations. Our methods may be helpful in achieving these objectives.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period.

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Which actionable statements qualify as good practice statements In Covid-19 guidelines? A systematic appraisal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the development and quality of actionable statements that qualify as good practice statements (GPS) reported in COVID-19 guidelines. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review . We searched MEDLINE, MedSci, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), databases of Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Guidelines, NICE, WHO and Guidelines International Network (GIN) from March 2020 to September 2021. We included original or adapted recommendations addressing any COVID-19 topic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We used GRADE Working Group criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing a GPS: (1) clear and actionable; (2) rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice; (3) practicality of systematically searching for evidence; (4) likely net positive consequences from implementing the GPS and (5) clear link to the indirect evidence. We assessed guideline quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. RESULTS: 253 guidelines from 44 professional societies issued 3726 actionable statements. We classified 2375 (64%) as GPS; of which 27 (1%) were labelled as GPS by guideline developers. 5 (19%) were labelled as GPS by their authors but did not meet GPS criteria. Of the 2375 GPS, 85% were clear and actionable; 59% provided a rationale necessitating the message for healthcare practice, 24% reported the net positive consequences from implementing the GPS. Systematic collection of evidence was deemed impractical for 13% of the GPS, and 39% explained the chain of indirect evidence supporting GPS development. 173/2375 (7.3%) statements explicitly satisfied all five criteria. The guidelines' overall quality was poor regardless of the appropriateness of GPS development and labelling. CONCLUSIONS: Statements that qualify as GPS are common in COVID-19 guidelines but are characterised by unclear designation and development processes, and methodological weaknesses.

Guidewire-assisted cannulation of the common bile duct for the prevention of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Cannulation techniques have been recognized as being important in causing post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) pancreatitis (PEP). However, considerable controversy exists about the usefulness of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique compared to the conventional contrast-assisted cannulation technique for the prevention of PEP in people undergoing diagnostic or therapeutic ERCP for biliary or pancreatic diseases. SEARCH METHODS: For the previous version of this review, we searched CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and major conference proceedings, up to February 2012, with no language restrictions. An updated search was performed on 26 February 2021 for the current version of this review. Two clinical trial registries, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, were also searched in this update. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique versus the contrast-assisted cannulation technique in people undergoing ERCP. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors conducted study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment independently. Using intention-to-treat analysis with random-effects models, we combined dichotomous data to obtain risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed heterogeneity using the Chi² test (P < 0.10) and I² statistic (> 50%). To explore sources of heterogeneity, we conducted a priori subgroup analyses according to trial design, publication type, risk of bias, use of precut sphincterotomy, inadvertent guidewire insertion or contrast injection of the pancreatic duct (PD), use of a PD stent, cannulation device, and trainee involvement in cannulation. To assess the robustness of our results, we carried out sensitivity analyses using different summary statistics (RR versus odds ratio (OR)) and meta-analytic models (fixed-effect versus random-effects) and per-protocol analysis. MAIN RESULTS: 15 RCTs comprising 4426 participants were included. There was moderate heterogeneity among trials for the outcome of PEP (P = 0.08, I² = 36%). Meta-analyses suggest that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72, 15 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). In addition, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.12, 13 studies, low-certainty evidence), and probably reduces the need for precut sphincterotomy (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96, 10 studies, moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of post-sphincterotomy bleeding (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.54, 7 studies, low-certainty evidence) and perforation (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.11 to 8.23, 8 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Procedure-related mortality was reported by eight studies, and there were no cases of deaths in both arms (moderate-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses suggest that the heterogeneity for the outcome of PEP could be explained by differences in trial design. The results were robust in sensitivity analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique probably reduces the risk of PEP compared to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique. There is low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in an increase in primary cannulation success. There is low- and very low-certainty evidence that the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique may result in little to no difference in the risk of bleeding and perforation. No procedure-related deaths were reported. Therefore, the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique appears to be superior to the contrast-assisted cannulation technique considering the certainty of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms. However, the routine use of guidewires in biliary cannulation will be dependent on local expertise, availability, and cost. Future research should assess the effectiveness and safety of the guidewire-assisted cannulation technique in the context of other pharmacologic or non-pharmacologic interventions for the prevention of PEP.

American College of Gastroenterology-Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Management of Anticoagulants and Antiplatelets During Acute Gastrointestinal Bleeding and the Periendoscopic Period.

We conducted systematic reviews of predefined clinical questions and used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach to develop recommendations for the periendoscopic management of anticoagulant and antiplatelet drugs during acute gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and the elective endoscopic setting. The following recommendations target patients presenting with acute GI bleeding: For patients on warfarin, we suggest against giving fresh frozen plasma or vitamin K; if needed, we suggest prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) compared with fresh frozen plasma administration; for patients on direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), we suggest against PCC administration; if on dabigatran, we suggest against the administration of idarucizumab, and if on rivaroxaban or apixaban, we suggest against andexanet alfa administration; for patients on antiplatelet agents, we suggest against platelet transfusions; and for patients on cardiac acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for secondary prevention, we suggest against holding it, but if the ASA has been interrupted, we suggest resumption on the day hemostasis is endoscopically confirmed. The following recommendations target patients in the elective (planned) endoscopy setting: For patients on warfarin, we suggest continuation as opposed to temporary interruption (1-7 days), but if it is held for procedures with high risk of GI bleeding, we suggest against bridging anticoagulation unless the patient has a mechanical heart valve; for patients on DOACs, we suggest temporarily interrupting rather than continuing these; for patients on dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention, we suggest temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor while continuing ASA; and if on cardiac ASA monotherapy for secondary prevention, we suggest against its interruption. Evidence was insufficient in the following settings to permit recommendations. With acute GI bleeding in patients on warfarin, we could not recommend for or against PCC administration when compared with placebo. In the elective periprocedural endoscopy setting, we could not recommend for or against temporary interruption of the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for patients on a single P2Y12 inhibiting agent. We were also unable to make a recommendation regarding same-day resumption of the drug vs 1-7 days after the procedure among patients prescribed anticoagulants (warfarin or DOACs) or P2Y12 receptor inhibitor drugs because of insufficient evidence.

Evolutionary Medicine Perspectives: Helicobacter pylori, Lactose Intolerance, and 3 Hypotheses for Functional and Inflammatory Gastrointestinal and Hepatobiliary Disorders.

Many clinicians have suboptimal knowledge of evolutionary medicine. This discipline integrates social and basic sciences, epidemiology, and clinical medicine, providing explanations, especially ultimate causes, for many conditions. Principles include genetic variation from population bottleneck and founder effects, evolutionary trade-offs, and coevolution. For example, host-microbe coevolution contributes to the inflammatory and carcinogenic variability of Helicobacter pylori. Antibiotic-resistant strains are evolving, but future therapy could target promutagenic proteins. Ancient humans practicing dairying achieved survival and reproduction advantages of postweaning lactase persistence and passed this trait to modern descendants, delegitimizing lactose intolerance as "disease" in people with lactase nonpersistence. Three evolutionary hypotheses are each relevant to multiple diseases: (i) the polyvagal hypothesis posits that prehistoric adaptation of autonomic nervous system reactions to stress is beneficial acutely but, when continued chronically, predisposes individuals to painful functional gastrointestinal disorders, in whom it may be a biomarker; (ii) the thrifty gene hypothesis proposes genetic adaptation to feast-famine cycles among Pleistocene migrants to America, which is mismatched with Indigenous Americans' current diet and physical activity, predisposing them to obesity, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, and gallstones and their complications; and (iii) the hygiene hypothesis proposes alteration of the gut microbiome, with which humans have coevolved, in allergic and autoimmune disease pathogenesis; for example, association of microbiome-altering proton pump inhibitor use with pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis, early-life gastrointestinal infection with celiac disease, and infant antibiotic use and an economically advanced environment with inflammatory bowel disease. Evolutionary perspectives broaden physicians' understanding of disease processes, improve care, and stimulate research.

Routine systematic sampling versus targeted sampling during endobronchial ultrasound: A randomized feasibility trial.

OBJECTIVE: Triple normal lymph nodes, appearing benign on computed tomography, positron emission tomography, and endobronchial ultrasound, have less than a 6% probability of malignancy. We hypothesized that targeted sampling (TS), which omits biopsy of triple normal lymph nodes during endobronchial ultrasound, is not an inferior staging strategy to systematic sampling (SS) of all lymph nodes. METHODS: A prospective randomized feasibility trial was conducted to decide on the progression to a pan-Canadian trial comparing TS with SS. Patients with cN0-N1 non-small cell lung cancer undergoing endobronchial ultrasound were randomized to TS or SS. Lymph nodes in the TS arm crossed over to receive SS. Progression criteria included recruitment rate (70% minimum), procedure length (no significant increase for TS), and incidence of missed nodal metastasis (<6%). Mann-Whitney U test and McNemar's test on paired proportions were used for statistical comparisons. RESULTS: The progression criterion of 70% recruitment rate was achieved early, triggering a planned early stoppage of the trial. Nineteen patients were allocated to each arm. The median procedure length for TS was significantly shorter than SS (3.07 vs 19.07 minutes; P < .001). After crossover analysis, 5.45% (95% confidence interval, 1.87-14.85) of lymph nodes in the TS arm were upstaged from N0 to N2, but this incidence of missed nodal metastasis was below the 6% threshold. During surgical resection, the nodal upstaging incidence from N0 to N2 was 0% for 15 lymph nodes in each arm. CONCLUSIONS: Progression criteria to a pan-Canadian, noninferiority crossover trial comparing TS with SS have been met, and such a trial is warranted.

Efficacy of Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy for functional dyspepsia: updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a chronic disorder that is difficult to treat. Helicobacter pylori may contribute to its pathophysiology. A Cochrane review from 2006 suggested that eradication therapy was beneficial, but there have been numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published since. We evaluated impact of eradication therapy on both cure and improvement of FD, as well as whether any benefit was likely to arise from eradication of H. pylori. DESIGN: We searched the medical literature through October 2021 to identify RCTs examining efficacy of eradication therapy in H. pylori-positive adults with FD. The control arm received antisecretory therapy or prokinetics, with or without placebo antibiotics, or placebo alone. Follow-up was for ≥3 months. We pooled dichotomous data to obtain a relative risk (RR) of symptoms not being cured or symptoms not improving with a 95% CI. We estimated the number needed to treat (NNT). RESULTS: Twenty-nine RCTs recruited 6781 H. pylori-positive patients with FD. Eradication therapy was superior to control for symptom cure (RR of symptoms not being cured=0.91; 95% CI 0.88 to 0.94, NNT=14; 95% CI 11 to 21) and improvement (RR of symptoms not improving=0.84; 95% CI 0.78 to 0.91, NNT=9; 95% CI 7 to 17). There was no significant correlation between eradication rate and RR of FD improving or being cured (Pearson correlation coefficient=-0.23, p=0.907), but the effect was larger in patients with successful eradication of H. pylori than with unsuccessful eradication (RR=0.65; 95% CI 0.52 to 0.82, NNT=4.5, 95% CI 3 to 9). Adverse events (RR=2.19; 95% 1.10 to 4.37) and adverse events leading to withdrawal (RR=2.60; 95% CI 1.47 to 4.58) were more common with eradication therapy. CONCLUSION: There is high quality evidence to suggest that H. pylori eradication therapy leads to both cure and improvement in FD symptoms, although the benefit is modest.

Proton pump inhibitor treatment initiated prior to endoscopic diagnosis in upper gastrointestinal bleeding.

BACKGROUND: Upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is a common reason for emergency hospital admission. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastric acid production and are used to manage upper GI bleeding. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of proton pump inhibitors initiated before endoscopy in people with upper gastrointestinal bleeding. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PPI treatment initiated prior to endoscopy in people with acute upper GI bleeding. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases and major conference proceedings to October 2008, for the previous versions of this review, and in April 2018, October 2019, and 3 June 2021 for this update. We also contacted experts in the field and searched trial registries and references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment with a PPI (oral or intravenous) versus control treatment with either placebo, histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or no treatment, prior to endoscopy in hospitalised people with uninvestigated upper GI bleeding. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted study data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes assessed at 30 days were: mortality (our primary outcome), rebleeding, surgery, high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage (active bleeding, non-bleeding visible vessel or adherent clot) at index endoscopy, endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy, time to discharge, blood transfusion requirements and adverse effects. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs comprising 2223 participants. No new studies have been published after the literature search performed in 2008 for the previous version of this review. Of the included studies, we considered one to be at low risk of bias, two to be at unclear risk of bias, and three at high risk of bias. Our meta-analyses suggest that pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce mortality (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.70; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may reduce rebleeding (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.06; 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). In addition, pre-endoscopic PPI use may not reduce the need for surgery (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.26; 6 studies; low-certainty evidence), and may not reduce the proportion of participants with high-risk stigmata of recent haemorrhage at index endoscopy (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.21; 4 studies; low-certainty evidence). Pre-endoscopic PPI use likely reduces the need for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.93; 3 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effect of pre-endoscopic PPI use on blood transfusions (2 studies; meta-analysis not possible; very low-certainty evidence) and time to discharge (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). There was no substantial heterogeneity amongst trials in any analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that PPI treatment initiated before endoscopy for upper GI bleeding likely reduces the requirement for endoscopic haemostatic treatment at index endoscopy. However, there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether pre-endoscopic PPI treatment increases, reduces or has no effect on other clinical outcomes, including mortality, rebleeding and need for surgery. Further well-designed RCTs that conform to current standards for endoscopic haemostatic treatment and appropriate co-interventions, and that ensure high-dose PPIs are only given to people who received endoscopic haemostatic treatment, regardless of initial randomisation, are warranted. However, as it may be unrealistic to achieve the optimal information size, pragmatic multicentre trials may provide valuable evidence on this topic.

A taxonomy and framework for identifying and developing actionable statements in guidelines suggests avoiding informal recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework. RESULTS: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process. CONCLUSION: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users.

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Position Statement on the Use of Hyoscine-n-butylbromide (Buscopan) During Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.

Hyoscine butylbromide, also known as hyoscyamine or scopolamine, and sold under the trade name Buscopan, is an antimuscarinic agent commonly used to induce smooth muscle relaxation and reduce spasmodic activity of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract during endoscopic procedures. However, the balance between desirable and undesirable (adverse) effects is not clear when used during GI endoscopy. The Clinical Affairs Committee of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) conducted systematic reviews and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to develop recommendations for the use of Buscopan during GI endoscopy. To summarize, we recommend against the use of Buscopan before or during colonoscopy (strong recommendation, high certainty of evidence). We suggest against the use of Buscopan before or during gastroscopy (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). We suggest the use of Buscopan before or during ERCP (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of evidence). More research is needed to determine whether patients undergoing advanced procedures such as endoscopic mucosal resection or endoscopic submucosal dissection benefit from its use. Buscopan should be used with caution in patients with cardiac comorbidities. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is contraindicated in patients with tachycardia, angina, and cardiac failure. Thus, Buscopan should be used very cautiously in patients with these conditions, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Such patients require careful cardiac monitoring in an environment where resuscitation equipment and appropriately trained staff to use it are readily available. According to its product monograph, Buscopan is also contraindicated in patients with prostatic hypertrophy with urinary retention, and therefore, should be used very cautiously in such patients as well, and only when the potential benefits of its use outweigh the potential risks in a particular case. Obtaining a preprocedural history of glaucoma is unlikely to be of value when considering Buscopan use. However, in cases where Buscopan has been used, patients should be counselled postprocedurally and told to present to an emergency facility should they experience eye pain, redness, decreased vision, nausea and vomiting or headache.

Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is performed to diagnose and manage conditions of the biliary and pancreatic ducts. Though effective, it is associated with common adverse events (AEs). The purpose of this study is to systematically review ERCP AE rates and report up-to-date pooled estimates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted of relevant medical databases through 10 November 2020. A study team of eight data abstracters will independently determine study eligibility, assess quality and abstract data in parallel, with any two concordant entries constituting agreement and with discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be the pooled incidence of post-ERCP pancreatitis, with secondary outcomes including post-ERCP bleeding, cholangitis, perforation, cholecystitis, death and unplanned healthcare encounters. Secondary outcomes will also include rates of specific and overall AEs within clinically relevant subgroups determined a priori. DerSimonian and Laird random effects models will be used to perform meta-analyses of these outcomes. Sources of heterogeneity will be explored via meta-regression. Subgroup analyses based on median dates of data collection across studies will be performed to determine whether AE rates have changed over time. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for this study as it is a planned meta-analysis of previously published data. Participant consent is similarly not required. Dissemination is planned via presentation at relevant conferences in addition to publication in peer-reviewed journals.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020220221.

ACG Clinical Guideline: Upper Gastrointestinal and Ulcer Bleeding.

We performed systematic reviews addressing predefined clinical questions to develop recommendations with the GRADE approach regarding management of patients with overt upper gastrointestinal bleeding. We suggest risk assessment in the emergency department to identify very-low-risk patients (e.g., Glasgow-Blatchford score = 0-1) who may be discharged with outpatient follow-up. For patients hospitalized with upper gastrointestinal bleeding, we suggest red blood cell transfusion at a threshold of 7 g/dL. Erythromycin infusion is suggested before endoscopy, and endoscopy is suggested within 24 hours after presentation. Endoscopic therapy is recommended for ulcers with active spurting or oozing and for nonbleeding visible vessels. Endoscopic therapy with bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, and absolute ethanol injection is recommended, and low- to very-low-quality evidence also supports clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation; hemostatic powder spray TC-325 is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers and over-the-scope clips for recurrent ulcer bleeding after previous successful hemostasis. After endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose proton pump inhibitor therapy is recommended continuously or intermittently for 3 days, followed by twice-daily oral proton pump inhibitor for the first 2 weeks of therapy after endoscopy. Repeat endoscopy is suggested for recurrent bleeding, and if endoscopic therapy fails, transcatheter embolization is suggested.

Using GRADE evidence to decision frameworks to choose from multiple interventions.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Guideline development groups or other health care decision makers frequently encounter situations that require a simultaneous comparison of multiple interventions. This sometimes becomes apparent either when they identify questions of interest, before they formulate recommendations, or it may surface only when recommendations have already been formulated based on pairwise comparisons. METHODS: Using examples from the World Health Organization, the European Commission, and a professional society, we developed a flexible approach to developing recommendations when a multiple-intervention comparison (MC) is needed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) frameworks. We iteratively refined this approach through user testing and then included a module in GRADE's official software GRADEpro to test the approach in two real and one theoretical guideline recommendations. RESULTS: We found the approach feasible and that all EtD criteria should be considered in an MC approach. We judged that guideline development groups and other decision makers will benefit from the availability of a network meta-analyses (NMA) of intervention effects to support decisions; however, NMA supports only one of many criteria, that is, the balance of health benefits and harms, and is therefore helpful, but not essential to the approach we propose. When similar but not identical comparators are used to address MC, challenges may arise with intransitivity and the relative rankings of interventions. CONCLUSION: We successfully applied the MC approach and software module in generating recommendations across different scenarios and identified challenges. The MC approach allows guideline groups and other decision makers to transparently and critically assess multiple options for a given health question. Application of the approach by others may lead to refinement and allow for better understanding of its impact in developing recommendations and making choices.