Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease are the principal forms of inflammatory bowel disease. Both represent chronic inflammation of the gastrointestinal tract, which displays heterogeneity in inflammatory and symptomatic burden between patients and within individuals over time. Optimal management relies on understanding and tailoring evidence-based interventions by clinicians in partnership with patients. This guideline for management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults over 16 years of age was developed by Stakeholders representing UK physicians (British Society of Gastroenterology), surgeons (Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland), specialist nurses (Royal College of Nursing), paediatricians (British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition), dietitians (British Dietetic Association), radiologists (British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology), general practitioners (Primary Care Society for Gastroenterology) and patients (Crohn’s and Colitis UK). A systematic review of 88 247 publications and a Delphi consensus process involving 81 multidisciplinary clinicians and patients was undertaken to develop 168 evidence- and expert opinion-based recommendations for pharmacological, non-pharmacological and surgical interventions, as well as optimal service delivery in the management of both ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease. Comprehensive up-to-date guidance is provided regarding indications for, initiation and monitoring of immunosuppressive therapies, nutrition interventions, pre-, peri- and postoperative management, as well as structure and function of the multidisciplinary team and integration between primary and secondary care. Twenty research priorities to inform future clinical management are presented, alongside objective measurement of priority importance, determined by 2379 electronic survey responses from individuals living with ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease, including patients, their families and friends.

https://gut.bmj.com/content/gutjnl/68/Suppl_3/s1.full.pdf

British Society of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on the management of inflammatory bowel disease in adults

Christian Maaser,a Andreas Sturm,b Stephan R. Vavricka,c Torsten Kucharzik,d Gionata Fiorino,e Vito Annese,f Emma Calabrese,g Daniel C. Baumgart,h Dominik Bettenworth,i Paula Borralho Nunes,j, Johan Burisch,k, Fabiana Castiglione,l Rami Eliakim,m Pierre Ellul,n Yago González-Lama,o Hannah Gordon,p Steve Halligan,q Konstantinos Katsanos,r Uri Kopylov,m Paulo G. Kotze,s Eduards Krustiņš,t Andrea Laghi,u Jimmy K. Limdi,v Florian Rieder,w Jordi Rimola,x Stuart A. Taylor,y Damian Tolan,z Patrick van Rheenen,aa Bram Verstockt,bb, Jaap Stokercc; on behalf of the European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR]

https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/181209/9/2018_05_02_Manuscript1_ECCO_ESGAR-DiagnosticsGL_c1-3.pdf

ECCO-ESGAR Guideline for Diagnostic Assessment in IBD Part 1: Initial diagnosis, monitoring of known IBD, detection of complications

Objective To systematically review methods developed and employed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of medical test when there is a missing or no gold standard. Study design and settings Articles that proposed or applied any methods to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of medical test(s) in the absence of gold standard were reviewed. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018089349). Results Identified methods were classified into four main groups: methods employed when there is a missing gold standard; correction methods (which make adjustment for an imperfect reference standard with known diagnostic accuracy measures); methods employed to evaluate a medical test using multiple imperfect reference standards; and other methods, like agreement studies, and a mixed group of alternative study designs. Fifty-one statistical methods were identified from the review that were developed to evaluate medical test(s) when the true disease status of some participants is unverified with the gold standard. Seven correction methods were identified and four methods were identified to evaluate medical test(s) using multiple imperfect reference standards. Flow-diagrams were developed to guide the selection of appropriate methods. Conclusion Various methods have been proposed to evaluate medical test(s) in the absence of a gold standard for some or all participants in a diagnostic accuracy study. These methods depend on the availability of the gold standard, its’ application to the participants in the study and the availability of alternative reference standard(s). The clinical application of some of these methods, especially methods developed when there is missing gold standard is however limited. This may be due to the complexity of these methods and/or a disconnection between the fields of expertise of those who develop (e.g. mathematicians) and those who employ the methods (e.g. clinical researchers). This review aims to help close this gap with our classification and guidance tools.

/pdf/diagnostic-test-evaluation-methodology-a-systematic-review-34x8era9nv.pdf

Diagnostic test evaluation methodology: A systematic review of methods employed to evaluate diagnostic tests in the absence of gold standard – An update

BACKGROUND AND AIMS Intestinal ultrasound [IUS] is an accurate, patient-centreed monitoring tool that objectively evaluates Crohn's disease [CD] activity. However no current, widely accepted, reproducible activity index exists to facilitate consistent IUS identification of inflammatory activity. The aim of this study is to identify key parameters of CD inflammation on IUS, evaluate their reliability, and develop an IUS index reflecting segmental activity. METHODS There were three phases: [1] expert consensus Delphi method to derive measures of IUS activity; [2] an initial, multi-expert case acquisition and expert interpretation of 20 blinded cases, to measure inter-rater reliability for individual measures; [3] refinement of case acquisition and interpretation by 12 international experts, with 30 blinded case reads with reliability assessment and development of a segmental activity score. RESULTS Delphi consensus: 11 experts representing seven countries identified four key parameters including: [1] bowel wall thickness [BWT]; [2] bowel wall stratification; [3] hyperaemia of the wall [colour Doppler imaging]; and [4] inflammatory mesenteric fat. Blind read: each variable exhibited moderate to substantial reliability. Optimal, standardised image and cineloop acquisition were established. Second blind read and score development: intra-class correlation coefficient [ICC] for BWT was almost perfect at 0.96 [0.94-0.98]. All four parameters correlated with the global disease activity assessment and were included in the final International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score with almost perfect ICC (0.97 [0.95-0.99, p <0.001]). CONCLUSIONS Using expert consensus and standardised approaches, identification of key activity measurements on IUS has been achieved and a segmental activity score has been proposed, demonstrating excellent reliability.

Expert Consensus on Optimal Acquisition and Development of the International Bowel Ultrasound Segmental Activity Score [IBUS-SAS]: A Reliability and Inter-rater Variability Study on Intestinal Ultrasonography in Crohn's Disease.

To compare patient acceptability and burden of magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) and ultrasound (US) to each other, and to other enteric investigations, particularly colonoscopy. 159 patients (mean age 38, 94 female) with newly diagnosed or relapsing Crohn’s disease, prospectively recruited to a multicentre diagnostic accuracy study comparing MRE and US completed an experience questionnaire on the burden and acceptability of small bowel investigations between December 2013 and September 2016. Acceptability, recovery time, scan burden and willingness to repeat the test were analysed using the Wilcoxon signed rank and McNemar tests; and group differences in scan burden with Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. Overall, 128 (88%) patients rated MRE as very or fairly acceptable, lower than US (144, 99%; p < 0.001), but greater than colonoscopy (60, 60%; p < 0.001). MRE recovery time was longer than US (p < 0.001), but shorter than colonoscopy (p < 0.001). Patients were less willing to undergo MRE again than US (127 vs. 133, 91% vs. 99%; p = 0.012), but more willing than for colonoscopy (68, 75%; p = 0.017). MRE generated greater burden than US (p < 0.001), although burden scores were low. Younger age and emotional distress were associated with greater MRE and US burden. Higher MRE discomfort was associated with patient preference for US (p = 0.053). Patients rated test accuracy as more important than scan discomfort. MRE and US are well tolerated. Although MRE generates greater burden, longer recovery and is less preferred than US, it is more acceptable than colonoscopy. Patients, however, place greater emphasis on diagnostic accuracy than burden. • MRE and US are rated as acceptable by most patients and superior to colonoscopy.
 • MRE generates significantly greater burden and longer recovery times than US, particularly in younger patients and those with high levels of emotional distress.
 • Most patients prefer the experience of undergoing US than MRE; however, patients rate test accuracy as more importance than scan burden.

/pdf/magnetic-resonance-enterography-small-bowel-ultrasound-and-4yl2jcg217.pdf

Magnetic resonance enterography, small bowel ultrasound and colonoscopy to diagnose and stage Crohn’s disease: patient acceptability and perceived burden

https://discovery.dundee.ac.uk/ws/files/27403524/PIIS2468125318301614.pdf

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn's disease (METRIC): a multicentre trial.

Adriana Martinez

Papers

Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance enterography and small bowel ultrasound for the extent and activity of newly diagnosed and relapsed Crohn's disease (METRIC): a multicentre trial.