title: Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE I) criteria were recently updated (EPAGE II), but no prospective studies have used these criteria in clinical practice. The aim of the current study was to validate the EPAGE II criteria in an open-access endoscopy unit.
  
  
  METHODS
  A prospective observational study was conducted in an open-access endoscopy unit at a tertiary care referral center. Consecutive outpatients (n = 1004; mean age 58.9 ± 13.1 years; 45 % men) were referred for diagnostic colonoscopy between September 2009 and February 2010. The appropriateness of colonoscopy was assessed based on EPAGE II criteria, and the relationship between appropriateness and both referral doctor and detection of significant lesions was examined. The effectiveness of EPAGE II criteria in assessing appropriateness was measured by means of sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for detecting significant lesions.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Colonoscopic cecal intubation was achieved in 956 patients (95.2 %). Most referral doctors were gastroenterologists (58.0 %) and the most common indication was colorectal cancer (CRC) screening (35.2 %). EPAGE II criteria were applicable in 968 patients (96.4 %); of these patients, the indication was appropriate in 778 (80.4 %), inappropriate in 102 (10.5 %), and uncertain in 88 (9.1 %). Patients with appropriate or uncertain indications based on EPAGE II criteria had more relevant endoscopic findings than those with inappropriate indications (38.8 % vs. 24.5 %; OR 1.95, 95 %CI 1.22 - 3.13; P < 0.005). Sensitivity and negative predictive value of EPAGE II criteria for detecting significant lesions were 93.1 % (95 %CI 90 % - 96 %) and 75.5 % (95 %CI 67 % - 84 %), respectively, whereas for advanced neoplastic lesions these values were 98.0 % (95 %CI 95 % - 100 %) and 98.0 % (95 % CI 95 % - 100 %), respectively. Adherence to EPAGE II recommendations was an independent predictor of finding a significant lesion (OR 1.93, 95 %CI 1.20 - 3.11; P = 0.007).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  EPAGE II is a simple, valid score for detecting inappropriate colonoscopies in clinical practice.
authors: Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital Universitario de Canarias, La Laguna, Tenerife, Spain. antozeben@gmail.com
authors: A Z
authors: AZ
authors: Gimeno García
authors: Y
authors: Y
authors: González
authors: E
authors: E
authors: Quintero
authors: D
authors: D
authors: Nicolás-Pérez
authors: Z
authors: Z
authors: Adrián
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Romero
authors: O
authors: O
authors: Alarcón Fernández
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Hernández
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Carrillo
authors: V
authors: V
authors: Felipe
authors: J
authors: J
authors: Díaz
authors: L
authors: L
authors: Ramos
authors: M
authors: M
authors: Moreno
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Jiménez-Sosa
mesh_terms: D000368:Aged; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003113:Colonoscopy / Q000592:standards* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D015179:Colorectal Neoplasms / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000473:pathology; D055088:Early Detection of Cancer; D005188:False Negative Reactions; D005189:False Positive Reactions; D005260:Female; D019983:Guideline Adherence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D017410:Practice Guidelines as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D011446:Prospective Studies; D012017:Referral and Consultation / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D019564:Unnecessary Procedures / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*