ABSTRACT
Background and study aims Quality measures were established to develop standards to help assess quality of care, yet variation in endoscopy exists. We performed a systematic review to assess the overall quality of evidence cited in formulating quality measures in endoscopy. Methods A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until November 15, 2020, to examine the quality measures proposed by all major societies. Quality measures were assessed for their level of quality evidence and categorized as category A (guideline-based), category B (observational studies) or category C (expert opinion). They were also examined for the type of measure (process, structure, outcome), the quality, measurability, review, existing conflicts of interest (COI), and patient participation of the quality measure. Results An aggregate total of 214 quality measures from nine societies (15 manuscripts) were included and analyzed. Of quality measures in endoscopy, 71.5â%, 23.8â%, and 4.7â% were based on low, moderate, and high quality of evidence, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence across societies was significantly different ( P â=â0.028). Of quality measures, 76â% were quantifiable, 18â% contained patient-centric outcomes, and 7â% reported outcome measures. None of the organizations reported on patient involvement or external review, six disclosed existing COI, and 40â% were published more than 5 years ago. Conclusions Quality measures are important to standardize clinical practice. Because over 70â% of quality measures in endoscopy are based on low-quality evidence, further studies are needed to improve the overall quality to effectively set a standard, reduce variation, and improve care in endoscopic practice.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Little data is available surrounding societal recommendations regarding extra-colonic malignancy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). As a result, we systematically analyzed these international guidelines to assess their overall quality as well as their adherence to standards for high-quality practice guidelines. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in multiple databases to identify all guidelines pertaining to extra-colonic malignancy in IBD in April 2020. All guidelines were reviewed for conflicts of interest (COI)/funding, recommendation quality and strength, external document review, use of patient representation, and plans for update-as per Institute of Medicine standards. In addition, recommendations were compared between guidelines/societies. Statistical analysis was conducted using R. RESULTS: A total of 11 recommendations on extra-colonic malignancy in IBD were put forth by 5 guidelines/societies. Zero percent of recommendations were found to be based on high-quality evidence, 36.4% of recommendations on moderate-quality evidence, and 63.6% of recommendations on low-quality evidence. 9.1% were strong recommendations, 0% were weak/conditional recommendations, and 90.9% of recommendations did not provide a strength. No guideline included patient representation or had plans for future update of their recommendations. CONCLUSION: There is a consistent lack of high-quality recommendations for extra-colonic malignancy in IBD across different societal guidelines. The need for high-quality studies to improve the strength of recommendations is eminent, as this will ultimately lead to high-quality patient care.
Subject(s)
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases , Neoplasms , Chronic Disease , Humans , Inflammatory Bowel Diseases/complications , Neoplasms/complications , Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as TopicABSTRACT
Acute pancreatitis is of one the most common gastroenterology-related indications for hospital admissions worldwide. With the widespread reliance on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) for the management of pancreaticobiliary conditions, post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) has come to represent an important etiology of acute pancreatitis. Despite many studies aiming to better understand the pathogenesis and prevention of this iatrogenic disorder, findings have been heterogeneous, and considerable variation in clinical practice exists. Herein, we review the literature regarding PEP with the goal to raise awareness of this entity, discuss recent data, and present evidence-based best practices. We believe this manuscript will be useful for gastrointestinal endoscopists as well as other specialists involved in the management of patients with PEP.
ABSTRACT
We report a novel solution for patients suffering from adult acquired retractile penis. Three patients complained of retractile penis (when standing) and/or prepubic recession. Physical examination confirmed the shaft of the penis was buried with only the glans visible. All three patients reported lower levels of self-confidence, self-esteem, and sexual confidence prior to their procedure. The three patients received surgical treatment with the insertion of a subcutaneous soft silicone penile implant and two of the three also received removal of the suprapubic fat pad. Over one year post operatively, the penile shaft and glans was visible and appeared natural. All patients reported an increase in self-confidence and self-esteem. The insertion of a subcutaneous soft silicone penile implant may prove to be a viable solution to reverse retractile penis and to increase patient quality of life when compared to more invasive current surgical treatments.
