A SiftingSignal publication/ Edited by Simon Mathews, MD

The week in GI, filtered to what is worth knowing.

Every week, 400+ papers from 25+ top GI and medical journals, transparently scored and physician-vetted. The signal, not the noise.

This week, in numbers

Issue №1 · week of Jun 24, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: BMJ / J Hepatology / Lancet GH / Gastroenterology
Selectivity
2.3%
10 in the issue of 439 screened
in the issue 10in depth 19held 14filtered out 396
97.7% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 19 cleared the bar and are carried in one line each, in full on the subspecialty pages.
How this week moves the standard
Changes practice 0
No paper this week forces an outright change to the standard. That is the usual, honest result.
Each paper is matched to the guideline that governs its question, then placed by how it moves it. 8 of the 10 cards in the issue are matched to a standard, and each of those quotes it with its source and review date. Click a segment to filter the issue.
The signal map
567389retrospectiveguideline →Clinical utilityEvidence strength
Each dot is a paper: evidence strength across, clinical utility up (what you can do with it, what rides on it, how many patients, how new), area = the journal's impact factor, colour = subspecialty. A dark ring marks a paper that refines or changes its standard of care. The vertical scale spans this week's cards and its numbers are the real scores out of 100. Click a dot to open its card.

What to know this week

the top-scored · the 5-minute version

ACG Clinical Guideline: Colonic Diverticulitis, ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Ulcerative Colitis, and The Rome V criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care.

The 10 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 19 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD5Hepatology2Esophagus/Reflux2Pancreas/Biliary3Endoscopy5Motility4Colorectal5Nutrition3
Type

This week to know

the 3 strongest this week · each scored 0 to 100 on what it lets you do, who it touches, the stakes, and how well the evidence backs it
Colorectal guideline · Jul 1, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 14.9

ACG Clinical Guideline: Colonic Diverticulitis.

Guideline / review
Clinical takeawayIn immunocompetent patients with mild, CT-confirmed uncomplicated left-sided diverticulitis who are non-toxic (no SIRS, CRP under 140 mg/L, WBC under 15), tolerating oral intake, and safe for outpatient care, manage without antibiotics; reserve antibiotics for immunocompromise, frailty, significant comorbidity, systemic inflammation, or refractory symptoms.
What it foundComputed tomography imaging is essential for diverticulitis diagnosis, especially at first presentation or in severe cases; colonoscopy post-recovery is recommended for complicated cases and suggested for uncomplicated cases with alarm symptoms or inadequate CRC screening.
ContextRefines prior practice by deprioritizing antibiotics for low-risk uncomplicated cases (supported by RCTs) and clarifying imaging/colonoscopy roles. Challenges historical dietary restrictions (e.g., nuts/seeds). Confirms surgery referral for select recurrent cases.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakewhether to perform colonoscopy after diverticulitis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Peery AF … Grover S · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 14.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD guideline · Jul 7, 2026 · J of Crohn's and Colitis · IF 8.3

ECCO Guidelines on Therapeutics in Ulcerative Colitis: Medical Treatment.

Guideline / reviewulcerative colitisguideline
Clinical takeawayUse ECCO UC therapeutics for the European perspective, but reconcile positioning against US ACG and AGA guidance and FDA safety labeling (notably the JAK-inhibitor boxed warning: age 50 or older with a cardiovascular risk factor, use after anti-TNF failure) before applying.
What it foundThe abstract does not report specific key results or effect sizes, as it is a guideline review rather than a study with new data.
ContextThis updates prior ECCO guidelines, reflecting new evidence and consensus on UC therapeutics since the last version.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026)

Decision at stakethe use of tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ozanimod, and etrasimod in ulcerative colitis

… Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. … Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. Lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. Confirm UC with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step C. difficile testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA chosen by route and extent: suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided disease, oral plus rectal for extensive disease. If 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by efficacy tier, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. Intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab. Lower: adalimumab. Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. Lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod. After anti-TNF primary non-response, switch mechanism rather than cycling within the class. Treat to target (STRIDE-II): endoscopic improvement, Mayo endoscopic subscore 0-1. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after diagnosis for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening. Inpatient care now follows the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (13 best-practice statements). Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. Give every patient admitted with diarrhea two-step C. difficile testing. Test for CMV, with early endoscopy, if symptoms worsen, the patient is systemically toxic or disease is steroid-refractory. Give routine VTE prophylaxis with LMWH or fondaparinux unless contraindicated, and individualize post-discharge extension. Give IV methylprednisolone 60 mg/day or equivalent; the AGA living guideline says 40-60 mg/day, and higher doses add no benefit. Do not give adjunctive antibiotics without infection. Involve surgery early. Assess response by day 3 (72 h) using stool frequency and CRP (Oxford criteria); do not continue IV steroids beyond about 7 days without response. Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. Before discharge, the response should be stable and a transition plan should be in place.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Gisbert JP … Kucharzik T · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · IF 8.3 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Motility prospective cohort · n=214 · Jul 1, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Elobixibat Versus Prucalopride in Functional Constipation: A Prospective Comparative Effectiveness Study.

New evidencechronic constipation
Clinical takeawayWhere it is available (Japan, India, not the US), a single non-randomized study suggests elobixibat may outperform prucalopride on sustained CSBM in refractory functional constipation, but this is hypothesis-generating and does not change guideline-based US practice, where elobixibat is unavailable.
What it foundElobixibat achieved a sustained complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) response in 55.6% of patients vs. 33.9% with prucalopride (p=0.024).
ContextThis study directly compares two second-line therapies with distinct mechanisms, addressing a gap in evidence-based decision-making for functional constipation.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association & American College of Gastroenterology, "American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation" (Chang L, Chey WD, Imdad A, et al.), 2023

Decision at stakethe choice of second-line therapy in functional constipation

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

In adults with chronic idiopathic constipation, the AGA-ACG panel makes 10 GRADE-based pharmacological recommendations, and the strength tier is part of the recommendation. Unqualified as to prior therapy: STRONG recommendation (moderate certainty) for polyethylene glycol; STRONG recommendation (moderate certainty) for bisacodyl or sodium picosulfate, but explicitly qualified as short-term or rescue therapy; CONDITIONAL suggestion for fiber supplementation (low certainty), magnesium oxide (very low certainty), and senna (low certainty). Reserved for patients who do not respond to, fail, or are intolerant of over-the-counter agents: STRONG recommendation (moderate certainty) for linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride; CONDITIONAL suggestion for lubiprostone (low certainty) and lactulose (very low certainty). The guideline states no specific doses, no mandatory ordering algorithm, and no fixed trial duration; it notes only that nonpharmacological therapies 'often represent the initial steps in management' and directs clinicians to shared decision making incorporating patient preference, cost, and availability. The guideline explicitly does not cover anorectal evacuation disorders, referring those to the ACG 2021 benign anorectal guideline.

American Gastroenterological Association & American College of Gastroenterology, "American Gastroenterological Association-American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline: Pharmacological Management of Chronic Idiopathic Constipation" (Chang L, Chey WD, Imdad A, et al.), 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Goyal O … Sood A · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 7, in full

IBD· 2

IBD meta analysis · n=936 · Jul 1, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Rethinking the dose: A Bayesian meta-analysis of infliximab intensification in acute severe ulcerative colitis.

New evidenceulcerative colitisbiologicsanti-TNFmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayA Bayesian meta-analysis suggests intensified infliximab induction may lower early colectomy in acute severe UC, but the only randomized trial (PREDICT-UC 2024) showed no benefit, so intensification remains non-standard and best individualized (e.g. high-clearance or hypoalbuminemic patients) rather than applied routinely.
What it foundIntensified infliximab dosing (10 mg/kg) cut 3-month colectomy rate to 6% vs 27% with standard dosing (5 mg/kg) in acute severe ulcerative colitis.
ContextConfirms and refines prior mixed evidence on intensified dosing efficacy, using Bayesian methods to integrate retrospective and trial data (PREDICT-UC).
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026)

Decision at stakethe optimal infliximab dosing strategy for acute severe ulcerative colitis

… Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. … Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. Confirm UC with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step C. difficile testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA chosen by route and extent: suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided disease, oral plus rectal for extensive disease. If 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by efficacy tier, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. Intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab. Lower: adalimumab. Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. Lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod. After anti-TNF primary non-response, switch mechanism rather than cycling within the class. Treat to target (STRIDE-II): endoscopic improvement, Mayo endoscopic subscore 0-1. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after diagnosis for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening. Inpatient care now follows the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (13 best-practice statements). Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. Give every patient admitted with diarrhea two-step C. difficile testing. Test for CMV, with early endoscopy, if symptoms worsen, the patient is systemically toxic or disease is steroid-refractory. Give routine VTE prophylaxis with LMWH or fondaparinux unless contraindicated, and individualize post-discharge extension. Give IV methylprednisolone 60 mg/day or equivalent; the AGA living guideline says 40-60 mg/day, and higher doses add no benefit. Do not give adjunctive antibiotics without infection. Involve surgery early. Assess response by day 3 (72 h) using stool frequency and CRP (Oxford criteria); do not continue IV steroids beyond about 7 days without response. Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. Before discharge, the response should be stable and a transition plan should be in place.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Goyal MK … Bishu S · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD guideline · Jul 7, 2026 · J of Crohn's and Colitis · IF 8.3

ECCO Guidelines on the Prevention, Diagnosis, and Management of Infections in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Guideline / reviewguidelineCrohn's diseaseulcerative colitis
Clinical takeawayBefore or early in immunosuppressive or biologic therapy for IBD, complete an infection-prevention bundle: screen for latent TB and hepatitis B, check VZV and measles immunity, and vaccinate (recombinant zoster for immunosuppressed adults, updated pneumococcal schedule, annual influenza, COVID), avoiding live vaccines during active immunosuppression.
What it foundThe abstract does not report specific numerical results or effect sizes, as it is a guideline review.
ContextThese guidelines consolidate and update prior evidence and recommendations, providing a comprehensive approach to infection management in IBD, which is critical given the immunosuppressive therapies commonly used.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

Yanai H … Gisbert JP · Journal of Crohn's and Colitis · IF 8.3 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Esophagus/Reflux· 1

Esophagus/Reflux retrospective · n=164,987 · Jul 8, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Incidence of Gastrointestinal Adverse Events and Healthcare Resource Utilization in Patients Using Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Analogs: A Real-World Study.

New evidenceepidemiologyGERDgastroparesisacute pancreatitis
Clinical takeawayCounsel patients with DM or obesity starting GLP-1 analogs about the high likelihood (1 in 3) of GI side effects, particularly nausea, vomiting, and GERD, and monitor for gastroparesis symptoms (early satiety, bloating). Note the reduced bowel obstruction risk and no significant increase in ER visits or hospitalizations despite higher EGD use.
What it foundGLP-1 therapy was associated with a 31.9% rate of GI adverse events at one year (NNH 17.2), including nausea/vomiting (HR 1.24), GERD (HR 1.18), and gastroparesis (HR 1.57), while reducing bowel obstruction risk (HR 0.86).
ContextConfirms and quantifies real-world GI risks of GLP-1 analogs beyond clinical trial data, while challenging assumptions about healthcare utilization (lower admissions despite more EGDs). Prior evidence focused on GLP-1 benefits with less emphasis on AEs.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

In patients with classic GERD symptoms (heartburn, regurgitation) and no alarm symptoms, give an 8-week trial of empiric PPI ONCE DAILY before a meal (strong, moderate evidence); administer PPI 30-60 minutes before a meal rather than at bedtime (strong, moderate). Endoscopy is the FIRST test in patients presenting with dysphagia or other alarm symptoms, the guideline names weight loss and GI bleeding, and also in patients with multiple risk factors for Barrett's esophagus (strong, low). If classic symptoms respond to the 8-week trial, attempt to discontinue the PPI (conditional, low); for patients without erosive esophagitis or Barrett's whose symptoms resolved, an attempt at discontinuation should be made; patients requiring maintenance should take the lowest effective dose. If symptoms do not respond adequately to the 8-week trial, or return on discontinuation, perform diagnostic endoscopy, ideally after PPIs are stopped for 2-4 weeks (strong, low). Where GERD is suspected but unclear and endoscopy shows no objective evidence, perform reflux monitoring OFF therapy to establish the diagnosis (strong, low); conversely, do NOT perform off-therapy reflux monitoring solely as a diagnostic test in patients already known to have LA grade C or D esophagitis or long-segment Barrett's, because the diagnosis is already established (strong, low). In refractory GERD, optimize PPI therapy first (strong, moderate); then pH monitoring OFF PPIs if GERD was not previously established by pH study, long-segment Barrett's, or LA grade C/D esophagitis, versus impedance-pH ON PPIs where GERD is already established but symptoms persist on twice-daily PPI (both conditional, low). Before antireflux surgery or endoscopic therapy, HRM is recommended to rule out achalasia and absent contractility, with provocative testing (e.g., multiple rapid swallows) to identify contractile reserve in ineffective esophageal motility; on-therapy reflux monitoring is suggested before intervention in patients with prior objective GERD findings who remain symptomatic. Antireflux surgery by an experienced surgeon is an option for patients with OBJECTIVE evidence of GERD, with severe esophagitis (LA C/D), large hiatal hernia, or persistent troublesome symptoms benefiting most; TIF is suggested only for troublesome regurgitation or heartburn in patients who do not wish to undergo antireflux surgery and who are WITHOUT severe esophagitis (LA C/D) or hiatal hernia >2 cm. For extraesophageal symptoms WITHOUT typical GERD symptoms, perform reflux testing BEFORE starting PPI therapy (strong, moderate); with concomitant typical symptoms, consider twice-daily PPI for 8-12 weeks before further testing (conditional, low). Lifestyle: weight loss in overweight/obese patients (strong, moderate); avoid meals within 2-3 hours of bedtime, avoid tobacco, avoid trigger foods, and elevate the head of the bed for nighttime symptoms (all conditional, low).

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (Katz PO, Dunbar KB, Schnoll-Sussman FH, Greer KB, Yadlapati R, Spechler SJ), Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Nathani P … Sharma P · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Endoscopy· 2

Endoscopy rct · n=4,824 · Jun 28, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Computer-aided detection in surveillance colonoscopy: a population-based randomized trial.

New evidence
Clinical takeawayConsider CADe for endoscopists with lower baseline ADR (<54.5%) in surveillance colonoscopy, as it improves detection in this subgroup. For high-performing endoscopists, CADe does not provide additional benefit.
What it foundCADe did not increase overall adenoma detection rate (ADR) in surveillance colonoscopy (57.4% vs 58.8%; aRR 1.02 [95% CI 0.95-1.10]), but improved ADR among lower-performing endoscopists (ADR<54.5%) (45.5% vs 52.1%; aRR 1.15 [95% CI 1.01-1.30]).
ContextThis challenges the assumption that CADe universally improves ADR in surveillance colonoscopy, showing its benefit is limited to lower-performing endoscopists in a high-performing screening program.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement)

Decision at stakewhether to use computer-aided detection (CADe) in post-polypectomy surveillance colonoscopy

… SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. …

From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.

Our full summary of this standard

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm, 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. For serrated polyps: 1-2 SSLs <10 mm, 5-10 years; 3-4 SSLs <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm, 3-5 years; an SSL ≥10 mm, an SSL with dysplasia, or a traditional serrated adenoma, 3 years. When findings are mixed, use the shortest interval indicated. Before applying an interval, confirm complete resection and adequate prep. Piecemeal resections get a site check, and malignant (T1) polyps go to a tumor-board pathway. Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now governed by a separate USMSTF consensus statement (Rex et al., published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Am J Gastroenterol and GIE on 2026-09-30). It has 11 recommendations. Diagnose SPS with the 2019 WHO criteria, which count the size, cumulative lifetime number and location of serrated polyps. Until SPS is diagnosed, record the number, size and location of serrated polyps in every colonoscopy report. SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. Without concurrent CRC, endoscopy is preferred over surgery for primary management. If the polyp burden cannot be managed endoscopically, refer to an advanced endoscopic resection expert before surgery. Resect SSLs and hyperplastic polyps by cold snare, with submucosal injection for larger lesions. Do clearance colonoscopy at 3-6 months, then surveil every 1-2 years. Consider 3-year intervals if the burden is greatly reduced at surveillance. First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. SPS has no established genetic basis, so germline testing is recommended only when concurrent non-serrated polyps suggest a heritable syndrome. Lynch, FAP/AFAP and MAP criteria still trigger genetic evaluation.

USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Codesido-Prado L … Cubiella J · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Jun 30, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Adverse events associated with endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and ERCP-related procedures.

Guideline / reviewERCPguideline
Clinical takeawayApply ASGE ERCP adverse-event guidance now: routine rectal NSAID (indomethacin or diclofenac 100 mg) for post-ERCP pancreatitis prophylaxis and prophylactic pancreatic-duct stenting in high-risk cases, plus aggressive periprocedural hydration.
What it foundThe abstract does not provide specific quantitative results on adverse event rates or comparisons.
ContextThis appears to be a guideline publication aiming to summarize or update standards on ERCP-related adverse events, but without the abstract providing details, it cannot be placed against prior evidence.
No standard claimed for this paper

Every paper is compared to the standard governing its question. This one is not: either no standard in the corpus matches it, or the comparison did not hold up on review and was withdrawn rather than published unverified. Both are logged.

ASGE Standards of Practice Committee … Thosani NC · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Motility· 1

Motility prospective cohort · n=726 · Jul 2, 2026 · Lancet GH · IF 30.9

The Rome V criteria for the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome in secondary care: a diagnostic accuracy study.

New evidenceIBS
Clinical takeawayRome V criteria show lower sensitivity (66.1%) compared to Rome IV (78.9%) and Rome III (87.5%) in this secondary care study. No clinical action yet; await further validation and SOC updates.
What it foundRome V criteria for IBS had sensitivity of 66.1% (95% CI 62.1-69.9) and specificity of 80.1% (72.4-86.5), identifying a different patient group compared to Rome IV (sensitivity 78.9%, specificity 81.0%) and Rome III (sensitivity 87.5%, specificity 75.0%).
ContextRome V shifts diagnostic balance versus Rome IV (higher specificity, lower sensitivity) and Rome III (higher specificity, much lower sensitivity). This challenges prior reliance on Rome criteria alone for case identification in referrals.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome', 2021

Decision at stakethe use of Rome IV criteria for IBS diagnosis

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

Diagnosis: use a positive diagnostic strategy based on Rome IV criteria rather than a strategy of exclusion (strong for cost-effectiveness, high quality; consensus for time-to-therapy), and categorize by IBS subtype (consensus). In patients with IBS and diarrhea symptoms: check celiac serology (strong, moderate) and, in those WITHOUT alarm features, fecal calprotectin (or fecal lactoferrin) plus CRP to rule out IBD (strong; moderate quality for CRP/calprotectin, very low for lactoferrin). Recommend AGAINST routine stool testing for enteric pathogens (conditional, low) and AGAINST routine colonoscopy in patients younger than 45 without warning signs (conditional, low). Anorectal physiology testing only when symptoms suggest a pelvic floor disorder and/or for refractory constipation not responding to standard medical therapy (consensus). Treatment, all subtypes: soluble, not insoluble, fiber (strong, moderate); a LIMITED trial of a low-FODMAP diet (conditional, very low); gut-directed psychotherapies for global symptoms (conditional, very low); TCAs for global symptoms (strong, moderate); peppermint suggested (conditional, low); antispasmodics for abdominal pain (conditional, low); AGAINST probiotics (conditional, very low), AGAINST fecal transplant (strong, very low). IBS-C: chloride channel activators (strong, moderate) and guanylate cyclase activators (strong, high); AGAINST PEG products for global IBS-C symptoms (conditional, low); tegaserod reserved for women younger than 65 with ≤1 cardiovascular risk factor who have not adequately responded to secretagogues (strong/conditional, low). IBS-D: rifaximin (strong, moderate); alosetron only for women with severe IBS-D who have failed conventional therapy (conditional, low); mixed opioid agonists/antagonists, i.e. eluxadoline (conditional, moderate); AGAINST bile acid sequestrants (conditional, very low).

American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome', 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Staller K … Ford AC · Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 30.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Colorectal· 1

Colorectal prospective cohort · n=46 · Jun 30, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 14.9

Inter and intra-observer agreement for the LST Classification in Large (>2cm) Colorectal Laterally Spreading Tumours.

Basic science
Clinical takeawayThe full LST subtype system has only fair inter-observer reliability (kappa about 0.36) versus moderate (about 0.48) for a simplified granular vs non-granular split, so weight the reproducible split but still document the high-risk nodular-mixed and pseudodepressed features, since guidelines use them to select en-bloc resection or ESD.
What it foundInter-observer agreement for LST classification was poor (κ=0.37 first round, κ=0.36 second round), improving to moderate (κ≈0.48) with a simplified 3-category granular vs non-granular model.
ContextChallenges current reliance on detailed LST subclassification, which lacks standardized reliability despite widespread use in predicting submucosal invasion risk and resection strategy.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin)

Decision at stakethe morphological assessment of large colorectal laterally spreading tumors for predicting submucosal invasion risk

No single passage of this standard matched the paper closely enough to quote, so none is shown. The standard is cited above.

Our full summary of this standard

U.S. Multi-Society Task Force (2017 guideline, revised by the 2022 focused update on age to start and stop): offer average-risk colorectal cancer screening to everyone aged 45-75. Screening at 45-49 is a weaker recommendation than at 50-75. Colonoscopy every 10 years and annual FIT are the Tier 1 cornerstones. Tier 2 alternatives are multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, and flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5-10 years. Capsule colonoscopy every 5 years is Tier 3. Any abnormal non-colonoscopy test requires a diagnostic colonoscopy, and a stool test should not be offered to a patient who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Patients who are up to date with negative prior screening, particularly a high-quality colonoscopy, may consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy is under 10 years. Decisions at 76-85 are individualized by health and prior screening, and screening after 85 is not recommended. The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. It adds the next-generation mt-sDNA test and the multitarget stool RNA test (ColoSense), both every 3 years, and it adds an FDA-approved blood-based cfDNA test (Shield) only for people who decline or do not complete visual or stool screening. ACS says a positive stool or blood test should be followed by colonoscopy, preferably within 6 months. The 2026 ASGE paper on follow-up after an abnormal stool test is an implementation review (navigation, tracking, direct-access colonoscopy), not a new screening guideline.

USMSTF 2017 (Rex et al., Gastroenterology) + USMSTF 2022 focused update on age (Patel et al., Gastroenterology 2022;162:285-299) / ACS 2026 (CA Cancer J Clin) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Djinbachian R … Pioche M · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 14.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week19 that cleared the bar

Ranked below the cards above, not excluded: these met the bar and were read and scored the same way. One line each, grouped by subspecialty, highest signal first; click through for the paper.

Also screened this week29 papers read, not selected

These cleared the journal filter and were read, but were not selected this week. A score means the paper was weighed: below 35 it fell short of the bar; at 35 or above, a check after scoring set it aside. A blank means it was set aside before scoring. Listed for anyone going deeper; no takeaway attached, because none was written. How we choose →

How we choose

the same pipeline every week
01

Scan

Every new paper across 48 vetted GI, hepatology, and general-medicine journals.

02

Screen

Drop what is not a study: letters, editorials, corrections, case reports. Classify the rest.

03

Anchor

Compare each paper to the guideline standard it touches, and record how far it moves it.

04

Verify

An adversarial second pass checks every claim against its cited source.

05

Vet

Each issue is reviewed by a physician editor before it publishes.