OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the two systems for the evaluation of the appropriateness of upper digestive endoscopy suggested by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE). METHODS: Patients referred for the upper digestive endoscopy (EGD) to a University Outpatients Clinic of Northeastern Italy were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Before the EGD, the endoscopist assigned the patients to one of the ASGE appropriateness classes; another endoscopist then identified the detailed clinical scenario for the patients, which corresponds to scenarios examined by EPAGE by using a nine-point scale: 1-3 inappropriate; 4-6 uncertain; and 7-9 appropriate. The relationship between the appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions (neoplasms, ulcers, esophagitis, erosive gastritis/duodenitis, stenosis, and varices) was assessed, calculating the sensitivity and the specificity for each of the ASGE criteria, and each of the EPAGE scores, and plotting them to form a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) provides a summary measure of test performance, and can vary from a minimum of 0.5 to a maximum of 1.0. We compared the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria against that derived from the EPAGE criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2,300 consecutive patients were included in the study (42% men; mean age: 57.3; range: 12-99); comparison of appropriateness criteria according to the ASGE and EPAGE could be made for 2,000 patients. The AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria was 0.553 (95% CI: 0.527-0.579), significantly higher than the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the EPAGE score: 0.523 (95% CI: 0.497-0.549; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the diagnostic yield for relevant endoscopic findings obtained by both the systems (ASGE and EPAGE) is low; slightly better results could be accomplished by the ASGE criteria.
Comparison between the two systems to evaluate the appropriateness of endoscopy of the upper digestive tract
RICCI, Giorgio;ALVISI, Vittorio
2004
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of the two systems for the evaluation of the appropriateness of upper digestive endoscopy suggested by the American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) and by the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE). METHODS: Patients referred for the upper digestive endoscopy (EGD) to a University Outpatients Clinic of Northeastern Italy were consecutively included in this prospective observational study. Before the EGD, the endoscopist assigned the patients to one of the ASGE appropriateness classes; another endoscopist then identified the detailed clinical scenario for the patients, which corresponds to scenarios examined by EPAGE by using a nine-point scale: 1-3 inappropriate; 4-6 uncertain; and 7-9 appropriate. The relationship between the appropriateness of use and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions (neoplasms, ulcers, esophagitis, erosive gastritis/duodenitis, stenosis, and varices) was assessed, calculating the sensitivity and the specificity for each of the ASGE criteria, and each of the EPAGE scores, and plotting them to form a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) provides a summary measure of test performance, and can vary from a minimum of 0.5 to a maximum of 1.0. We compared the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria against that derived from the EPAGE criteria. RESULTS: A total of 2,300 consecutive patients were included in the study (42% men; mean age: 57.3; range: 12-99); comparison of appropriateness criteria according to the ASGE and EPAGE could be made for 2,000 patients. The AUC of the ROC curve derived from the ASGE criteria was 0.553 (95% CI: 0.527-0.579), significantly higher than the AUC of the ROC curve derived from the EPAGE score: 0.523 (95% CI: 0.497-0.549; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest that the diagnostic yield for relevant endoscopic findings obtained by both the systems (ASGE and EPAGE) is low; slightly better results could be accomplished by the ASGE criteria.I documenti in SFERA sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
