Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2023
Standardizing Scoring Conventions for Crohn's Disease Endoscopy: An International RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Khanna Reena, Ma Christopher, Hogan Malcolm, Zou Guangyong, Bessissow Talat, Bressler Brian, Colombel Jean-Frédéric, Danese Silvio, Daperno Marco, East James E, Hookey Lawrence, Loftus Edward V, McDonald John W D, Panaccione Remo, Peyrin-Biroulet Laurent, Rutter Matt, Sands Bruce E, Vermeire Séverine, Rémillard Julie, McFarlane Stefanie C, Sandborn William J, D'Haens Geert R, Feagan Brian G, Jairath Vipul
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic assessment of disease activity is integral for evaluating treatment response in patients with Crohn's disease (CD). We aimed to define appropriate items for evaluating endoscopic activity and conventions for consistent endoscopic scoring rules in CD.
METHODS: A 2-round modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method study was conducted. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of statements pertaining to the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD, Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, and additional items relevant to endoscopy scoring in CD. Each statement was voted as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate based on the median panel rating and presence of disagreement.
RESULTS: Panelists voted that it is appropriate for all ulcers to contribute to endoscopic scoring in CD, including aphthous ulcers, ulcerations at a surgical anastomosis, and anal canal ulcers (scored in the rectum). Endoscopic healing should reflect an absence of ulcers. Narrowing should be defined as a clear decrease in luminal diameter; stenosis should be defined by an impassable narrowing, and if occurring at the junction of 2 segments, scored in the distal segment. Scarring and inflammatory polyps were considered inappropriate for including in the affected area score. The optimal method for defining ulcer depth remains uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS: We outlined scoring conventions for the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, noting that both scores have limitations. Therefore, we identified priorities for future research and steps for developing and validating a more representative endoscopic index in CD.
METHODS: A 2-round modified RAND/University of California at Los Angeles Appropriateness Method study was conducted. A panel of 15 gastroenterologists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate the appropriateness of statements pertaining to the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD, Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, and additional items relevant to endoscopy scoring in CD. Each statement was voted as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate based on the median panel rating and presence of disagreement.
RESULTS: Panelists voted that it is appropriate for all ulcers to contribute to endoscopic scoring in CD, including aphthous ulcers, ulcerations at a surgical anastomosis, and anal canal ulcers (scored in the rectum). Endoscopic healing should reflect an absence of ulcers. Narrowing should be defined as a clear decrease in luminal diameter; stenosis should be defined by an impassable narrowing, and if occurring at the junction of 2 segments, scored in the distal segment. Scarring and inflammatory polyps were considered inappropriate for including in the affected area score. The optimal method for defining ulcer depth remains uncertain.
CONCLUSIONS: We outlined scoring conventions for the Simple Endoscopic Score for CD and Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, noting that both scores have limitations. Therefore, we identified priorities for future research and steps for developing and validating a more representative endoscopic index in CD.