European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease
Clicks: 1
ID: 304849
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #18 of 18 articles by views in Journal of Crohn s and Colitis
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Endoscopy plays an essential role in the diagnosis, management, prognosis, and surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but surprisingly there are few available guidelines.1,2 This prompted the ECCO Guidelines Committee (GuiCom) members to promote a Consensus on the appropriate indication and application of different endoscopic modalities in IBD. Since the development of guidelines is an expensive and time-consuming process, this Consensus may help to avoid duplication of effort in the future. It may also identify issues where the evidence is lacking and controlled studies are awaited.
The strategy to reach the Consensus involved five steps:
1. Two members of the GuiCom (VA and RE) identified four main topics: a) Diagnosis and follow-up; b) Score of endoscopic activity; c) Small bowel endoscopy; and d) Surveillance. During 2012 a call for participants to the Guideline was made to ECCO members. In addition, expert endoscopists recognised for their active research in the field were invited. Participants were selected by the Guicom and four working groups were created. Each working group had a chair (VA, MD, MT, and RE), two ECCO members including young members (Y-ECCO) and one experienced endoscopist. For the development of the guideline, relevant questions on separate topics were devised by the chairmen and their working parties. The questions were focused on current practice and areas of controversy. Participants of the Consensus process were asked to answer the questions based on evidence from the literature as well as their experience (Delphi procedure)3;
2. The working parties working in parallel performed a systematic literature search of their topic with the appropriate key words using Medline/Pubmed and the Cochrane database, as well as other relevant sources;
3. Provisional guideline statements on their topic were then written by the chairmen. These were circulated and commented on first by working party members and …
Abstract Quality Issue:
This abstract appears to be incomplete or contains metadata (295 words).
Try re-searching for a better abstract.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W1979184889
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Vito Annese, Marco Daperno, Matthew D. Rutter, Aurélien Amiot, Peter Bossuyt, James E. East, Marc Ferrante, Martín Götz, Κωνσταντίνος Κατσάνος, Ralf Kießlich, Íngrid Ordás, Alessandro Repici, Bruno Rosa, Shaji Sebastian, Torsten Kucharzik, Rami Eliakim |
| Journal | Journal of Crohn s and Colitis |
| Year | 2013 |
| DOI |
10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.