| 1. |
- Beets-Tan, Regina G. H., et al.
(författare)
-
Magnetic resonance imaging for the clinical management of rectal cancer patients : recommendations from the 2012 European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) consensus meeting
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 23:9, s. 2522-2531
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- To develop guidelines describing a standardised approach regarding the acquisition, interpretation and reporting of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for clinical staging and restaging of rectal cancer. A consensus meeting of 14 abdominal imaging experts from the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) was conducted following the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. Two independent (non-voting) chairs facilitated the meeting. Two hundred and thirty-six items were scored by participants for appropriateness and classified subsequently as appropriate or inappropriate (defined by a parts per thousand yen 80 % consensus) or uncertain (defined by < 80 % consensus). Items not reaching 80 % consensus were noted. Consensus was reached for 88 % of items: recommendations regarding hardware, patient preparation, imaging sequences, angulation, criteria for MRI assessment and MRI reporting were constructed from these. These expert consensus recommendations can be used as clinical guidelines for primary staging and restaging of rectal cancer using MRI. These guidelines recommend standardised imaging for staging and restaging of rectal cancer. The guidelines were constructed through consensus amongst 14 abdominal imaging experts. Consensus was reached by in 88 % of 236 items discussed.
|
|
| 2. |
- Neri, Emanuele, et al.
(författare)
-
The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography.
- 2013
-
Ingår i: European Radiology. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0938-7994 .- 1432-1084. ; 23:3, s. 720-729
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To update quality standards for CT colonography based on consensus among opinion leaders within the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A multinational European panel of nine members of the ESGAR CT colonography Working Group (representing six EU countries) used a modified Delphi process to rate their level of agreement on a variety of statements pertaining to the acquisition, interpretation and implementation of CT colonography. Four Delphi rounds were conducted, each at 2months interval. RESULTS: The panel elaborated 86 statements. In the final round the panelists achieved complete consensus in 71 of 86 statements (82%). Categories including the highest proportion of statements with excellent Cronbach's internal reliability were colon distension, scan parameters, use of intravenous contrast agents, general guidelines on patient preparation, role of CAD and lesion measurement. Lower internal reliability was achieved for the use of a rectal tube, spasmolytics, decubitus positioning and number of CT data acquisitions, faecal tagging, 2D vs. 3D reading, and reporting. CONCLUSION: The recommendations of the consensus should be useful for both the radiologist who is starting a CTC service and for those who have already implemented the technique but whose practice may need updating. KEY POINTS : • Computed tomographic colonography is the optimal radiological method of assessing the colon • This article reviews ESGAR quality standards for CT colonography • This article is aimed to provide CT-colonography guidelines for practising radiologists • The recommendations should help radiologists who are starting/updating their CTC services.
|
|
| 3. |
- Sardanelli, Francesco, et al.
(författare)
-
The Role of Imaging Specialists as Authors of Systematic Reviews on Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging and Its Impact on Scientific Quality : Report from the EuroAIM Evidence-based Radiology Working Group
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Radiology. - : Radiological Society of North America (RSNA). - 0033-8419 .- 1527-1315. ; 272:2, s. 533-540
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Purpose: To evaluate the inclusion of radiologists or nuclear medicine physicians (imaging specialists) as authors of systematic reviews (SRs) on imaging and imaging-guided diagnostic procedures and to determine the impact of imaging specialists' presence as authors on the overall quality of the reviews.Materials and Methods: A MEDLINE and EMBASE search was performed for SRs of diagnostic and interventional image-guided procedures that were published from January 2001 to December 2010. SRs about procedures primarily performed by nonimaging specialists were excluded. The inclusion of imaging specialists among the SR authors and the frequency of publication in imaging journals were evaluated. The quality of a subset of 200 SRs (100 most recent SRs with imaging specialists as authors and 100 most recent SRs without imaging specialists as authors) was rated by using a 12-item modified assessment of multiple SRs (AMSTAR) evaluation tool. Spearman, chi(2), and Mann-Whitney statistics were used.Results: From among 3258 retrieved citations, 867 SRs were included in the study. Neuroimaging had the largest number of SRs (28% [241 of 867]), 41% (354 of 867) of SRs concerned diagnostic performance, and 26% (228 of 867) of SRs were published in imaging journals. Imaging specialists were authors (in any position) in 330 (38%) of 867 SRs; they were first authors of 176 SRs and last authors of 161 SRs. SRs with imaging specialists as authors were more often published in imaging journals than in nonimaging journals (54% [179 of 330] vs 9% [49 of 537]; P < .001). The median number of modified AMSTAR quality indicators was nine in SRs with imaging specialists as authors, while that in SRs without imaging specialists as authors was seven (P = .003).Conclusion: Only 38% (330 of 867) of SRs on radiology or nuclear medicine-related imaging published from January 2001 to December 2010 included imaging specialists as authors. However, the inclusion of imaging specialists as authors was associated with a significant increase in the scientific quality (as judged by using a modified AMSTAR scale) of the SR.
|
|
| 4. |
- Spada, Cristiano, et al.
(författare)
-
Clinical indications for computed tomographic colonography: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR) Guideline.
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Endoscopy. - : Georg Thieme Verlag KG. - 1438-8812 .- 0013-726X. ; 46:10, s. 897-915
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This is an official guideline of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR). It addresses the clinical indications for the use of computed tomographic colonography (CTC). A targeted literature search was performed to evaluate the evidence supporting the use of CTC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was adopted to define the strength of recommendations and the quality of evidence. Main recommendations 1 ESGE/ESGAR recommend computed tomographic colonography (CTC) as the radiological examination of choice for the diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia. ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend barium enema in this setting (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 2 ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC, preferably the same or next day, if colonoscopy is incomplete. Delay of CTC should be considered following endoscopic resection. In the case of obstructing colorectal cancer, preoperative contrast-enhanced CTC may also allow location or staging of malignant lesions (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 When endoscopy is contraindicated or not possible, ESGE/ESGAR recommend CTC as an acceptable and equally sensitive alternative for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (strong recommendation, high quality evidence). 4 ESGE/ESGAR recommend referral for endoscopic polypectomy in patients with at least one polyp ≥ 6 mm in diameter detected at CTC. CTC surveillance may be clinically considered if patients do not undergo polypectomy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 5 ESGE/ESGAR do not recommend CTC as a primary test for population screening or in individuals with a positive first-degree family history of colorectal cancer (CRC). However, it may be proposed as a CRC screening test on an individual basis providing the screenee is adequately informed about test characteristics, benefits, and risks (weak recommendation, moderate quality evidence).
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
