A SiftingSignal publication/ Edited by Simon Mathews, MD

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

Every week, 100+ papers from 25+ top GI and medical journals, transparently scored and physician-vetted. The signal, not the noise.

This week, in numbers

Issue №3 · week of Jul 19, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: JAMA / J Hepatology / Lancet GH / Gastroenterology
Selectivity
5.7%
10 in the issue of 174 screened
in the issue 10in depth 18held 1filtered out 145
94.3% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 18 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. These are the 10 cards in the issue; every one quotes the standard it was measured against, with its source and review date. Click a segment to filter the issue.
The signal map
EmergingReinforcesRefinesChangesstrong evidence · moves the standardnarrative reviewguideline →How far it moves the standardEvidence strength
Each dot is a paper: evidence strength across, how far it moves the standard up, area = the journal's impact factor, colour = subspecialty. The shaded zone is a fixed bar (prospective cohort or better, refining the standard or better), so a big dot outside it is work the field rated highly that is not changing practice. Click a dot to open its card.

What to know this week

the top-scored · the 5-minute version

avoid resection in pCCA patients with ABC score 3 (tumor ≥25 mm, CA19-9 ≥500 U/mL, WHO PS ≥1), use ustekinumab for fistulising perianal Crohn's disease: 62% remission vs 25% placebo at 12 weeks, and use propofol as first-line procedural sedation.

The 10 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 18 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD5Hepatology4Esophagus/Reflux2Pancreas/Biliary5Endoscopy4Motility5Colorectal1Nutrition2
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
Pancreas/Biliary retrospective · n=1,307 · Jul 24, 2026 · J Hepatology · IF 40.1

An ABC approach for preoperative staging in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma An international multicenter cohort study.

Practice-changingcholangiocarcinomabiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider avoiding curative-intent resection in pCCA patients with an ABC score of 3 (tumor size ≥25 mm, CA19-9 ≥500 U/mL, WHO PS ≥1) due to high mortality and recurrence risks, but note this is based on retrospective data.
What it foundABC score of 3 (tumor size ≥25 mm, CA19-9 ≥500 U/mL, WHO PS ≥1) had 3.4 times higher 90-day mortality (21% vs 6% in ABC-0), 3.3 times higher 6-month recurrence (18% vs 5% in ABC-0), and 3.6 times lower 5-year OS (11% vs 35% in ABC-0). ABC score for OS ranges 0-3 points (1 point per factor); recurrence score ranges 0-2 points (excludes WHO PS).
ContextRefines preoperative staging for pCCA by identifying high-risk patients unlikely to benefit from resection, challenging the default approach of offering surgery to all resectable cases. Retrospective multicenter cohort.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· NCCN Biliary Tract Cancers V2.2025 (V1.2026 in circulation) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance on PSC and Cholangiocarcinoma

Decision at stakedetermining resectability in perihilar cholangiocarcinoma

Stage cholangiocarcinoma with multiphasic MRI/MRCP plus CT chest/abdomen/pelvis, obtain tissue via ERCP brush cytology with FISH, cholangioscopy-directed biopsy, or EUS-FNA (avoiding primary perihilar tumor sampling if liver transplant is being considered due to theoretical seeding risk), and manage through a multidisciplinary tumor board with treatment stratified by tumor location: resect (anatomic hepatectomy for intrahepatic, hemihepatectomy with bile duct resection for perihilar, Whipple for distal) with adjuvant capecitabine (category 1, per BILCAP) when resectable.

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

Stage cholangiocarcinoma with multiphasic MRI/MRCP plus CT chest/abdomen/pelvis, obtain tissue via ERCP brush cytology with FISH, cholangioscopy-directed biopsy, or EUS-FNA (avoiding primary perihilar tumor sampling if liver transplant is being considered due to theoretical seeding risk), and manage through a multidisciplinary tumor board with treatment stratified by tumor location: resect (anatomic hepatectomy for intrahepatic, hemihepatectomy with bile duct resection for perihilar, Whipple for distal) with adjuvant capecitabine (category 1, per BILCAP) when resectable. For unresectable or metastatic disease, first-line systemic therapy is gemcitabine plus cisplatin combined with a PD-L1/PD-1 checkpoint inhibitor, either durvalumab (TOPAZ-1) or pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE-966), both listed as category 1 preferred options by NCCN; comprehensive molecular/genomic profiling is recommended for all unresectable/metastatic candidates for systemic therapy to identify actionable targets (e.g., FGFR2 fusions, IDH1 mutations, HER2 amplification) for later-line therapy. Selected unresectable early-stage perihilar tumors may undergo neoadjuvant chemoradiation and liver transplant per the Mayo Clinic protocol at experienced centers, and jaundice or cholangitis is managed with biliary drainage (ERCP preferred over PTC).

NCCN Biliary Tract Cancers V2.2025 (V1.2026 in circulation) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance on PSC and Cholangiocarcinoma · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Ten Haaft BHEA … Perihilar Cholangiocarcinoma Collaboration Group · Journal of Hepatology · IF 40.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD rct · n=32 · Jul 24, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Ustekinumab for fistulising perianal Crohn's disease: a randomised placebo-controlled trial from the GETAID.

New therapyCrohn's diseaseustekinumabbiologicsperianal disease
Clinical takeawayConsider ustekinumab for patients with active fistulising perianal Crohn's disease, particularly those with prior anti-TNF failure, after standardised surgical management.
What it foundUstekinumab achieved combined clinical and radiological remission in 62% vs 25% with placebo at week 12 (OR=5.1, 95% CI 1.07-24.4).
ContextThis trial provides new evidence supporting ustekinumab's efficacy in a challenging subset of Crohn's disease, where few randomised controlled trials have been conducted.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), "The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Anorectal Abscess, Fistula-in-Ano, and Rectovaginal Fistula" (Gaertner WB, Burgess PL, Davids JS, et al.), Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2022;65(8):964-985, doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000002473

Decision at stakethe management of fistulising perianal Crohn's disease

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

Diagnose anorectal abscess and fistula-in-ano clinically: a disease-specific history and physical examination assessing symptoms, relevant history, abscess and fistula location, and secondary cellulitis (1C), with digital rectal exam and anoscopy/proctoscopy as needed. Routine diagnostic imaging is NOT typically necessary (1B); reserve imaging for selected patients with occult abscess, recurrent or complex fistula, immunosuppression, or anorectal Crohn's disease (MRI sensitivity 97% vs 74% for endoanal ultrasound in complex fistula; combined accuracy approaches 100%). Treat acute anorectal abscess promptly with incision and drainage (1C), placing the incision close to the anal verge to limit subsequent tract length and preserve the sphincter complex; packing is not required and unpacked wounds gave better resolution, less pain and faster healing in randomized trials. Reserve antibiotics for abscess complicated by cellulitis, systemic signs of infection, or underlying immunosuppression (2B); routine antibiotics after uncomplicated drainage in healthy patients do not improve healing or reduce recurrence, and conversely immunosuppressed patients with low neutrophil counts and no fluctuance may initially be treated with antibiotics alone rather than drainage. Concomitant fistulotomy at the time of drainage may be performed in selected patients with a simple anal fistula (2B), balancing lower recurrence (RR 0.13 in a 479-patient meta-analysis) against a non-significant increase in continence disturbance. For simple fistula-in-ano with normal sphincter function, lay-open fistulotomy heals over 90% (1B); for low fistulas involving less than one third of the external sphincter the clinically significant incontinence risk is minimal, and marsupialization improves healing and reduces bleeding. Sphincter-preserving options: endorectal advancement flap (1B; 66% to 87% initial healing, but up to 35% mild-to-moderate incontinence) and, for transsphincteric tracts, ligation of the intersphincteric fistula tract (LIFT) (1B; 76% pooled success, 1.4% incontinence). A cutting seton may be used selectively for complex cryptoglandular fistula (2C, downgraded from 2B; reported incontinence ranges 0% to 67%). The anal fistula plug and fibrin glue are relatively ineffective (1B, upgraded from 2B; contemporary healing 50% or less). Endoscopic or laser closure techniques (VAAFT, FiLaC, OTSC) have reasonable short-term healing but unknown long-term healing and recurrence rates (2C). In Crohn's disease, where abscess and fistula arise from penetrating inflammation rather than cryptoglandular infection, management is multidisciplinary and a draining seton is typically useful and may be used for long-term disease control (1B, upgraded from 1C); Crohn's disease is a named risk factor for failure or recurrence of fistulotomy, advancement flap, LIFT, and plug.

American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), "The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Anorectal Abscess, Fistula-in-Ano, and Rectovaginal Fistula" (Gaertner WB, Burgess PL, Davids JS, et al.), Diseases of the Colon & Rectum 2022;65(8):964-985, doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000002473 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Wils P … Groupe d'Etude Thérapeutique des Affections Inflammatoires du Tube Digestif (GETAID) · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Jul 21, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology and Endoscopy Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) Guideline.

Guideline / reviewguidelinesedationhealth services
Clinical takeawayIn your endoscopy practice: (1) adopt propofol as your first-line procedural sedation unless contraindicated or unavailable; (2) use midazolam with opiates as alternative if propofol not accessible; (3) consider remimazolam specifically for elderly patients or those with significant cardiac or pulmonary disease, but exercise caution when combining with other sedatives or analgesics; if analgesia is required, carefully coordinate drug selection with your sedation team; (4) ensure a dedicated, specifically trained staff member (not dual-tasking) administers all sedation; (5) perform pre-procedure risk assessment for each patient and calibrate your sedation regimen and monitoring based on both procedure complexity and patient risk factors; include capnography monitoring for high-risk patients; (6) individualize sedation decisions for patients taking GLP-1 receptor agonists rather than using a standard approach; (7) routinely offer unsedated diagnostic colonoscopy and gastroscopy as a patient option.
What it foundESGE/ESGENA guideline specifies propofol as first-line procedural sedation (where permissible), midazolam with opiates as alternative, and remimazolam for elderly patients or those with cardiovascular/respiratory comorbidities; mandates sedation delivery by dedicated trained professionals and tailors pre-assessment and periprocedural monitoring to both procedure complexity and patient risk profile.
ContextThis European guideline formalizes and standardizes endoscopy sedation practice. Propofol is already used first-line in many centers but is now officially endorsed across Europe where resources and law permit. Remimazolam is newly highlighted as a dedicated option for high-risk patients (elderly, cardiovascular/pulmonary comorbidities), reflecting evidence on ultrashort-acting agents in medically complex populations. The emphasis on dedicated trained sedation staff and explicit risk stratification strengthens safety protocols.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· ESGE/ESGENA 2026 (PMID 42480549); ESGE/ESGENA/ESA NAAP 2015; ASGE 2018; ASA 2018 moderate sedation; multisociety GLP-1 perioperative guidance 2024

Decision at stakesedation regimen and monitoring should be scaled to patient risk and procedure complexity, using propofol first-line or midazolam with opiates, with dedicated staffing and trained recovery

Scale pre-sedation assessment, regimen and monitoring to patient risk and procedure complexity. Propofol AND midazolam-with-opiate are both strongly recommended; propofol as first line is conditioned on national legislation and staffing, not on demonstrated superiority.

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

Scale pre-sedation assessment, regimen and monitoring to patient risk and procedure complexity. Assess ASA class, Mallampati, BMI, OSA risk and fasting status before every sedated procedure. Propofol AND midazolam-with-opiate are both strongly recommended; propofol as first line is conditioned on national legislation and staffing, not on demonstrated superiority. Consider remimazolam in the elderly and in cardiorespiratory comorbidity. Whoever administers sedation must be able to rescue a patient one level deeper than intended. Involve an anesthesiology specialist for emergency endoscopy with increased aspiration risk, hemodynamic instability, OR significant comorbidities, and electively for ASA >=3, Mallampati >=3, severe OSA or anticipated difficult airway. Individualize GLP-1 receptor agonist management rather than withholding blindly. Discharge against a scoring system with an accompanying adult and 24-hour restrictions.

ESGE/ESGENA 2026 (PMID 42480549); ESGE/ESGENA/ESA NAAP 2015; ASGE 2018; ASA 2018 moderate sedation; multisociety GLP-1 perioperative guidance 2024 ↗
Triantafyllou K … Sidhu R · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 7, in full

IBD· 2

IBD guideline · Jul 22, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

New Diagnostic Criteria for Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis in the Modern Treatment Era: A Modified Delphi Consensus by REFINED-ASUC.

Guideline / reviewulcerative colitisguideline
Clinical takeawayUse these criteria to diagnose ASUC in patients on outpatient corticosteroids or biologics; the 1955 Truelove-Witts criteria did not account for treated patients and could miss ASUC in this population. Confirm diagnosis with endoscopy (exclude CMV superinfection) and imaging (exclude toxic megacolon). For patients on high-dose corticosteroids, apply the lower CRP threshold (≥1x ULN) and bloody-stool threshold (≥33%) to account for anti-inflammatory suppression.
What it foundConsensus diagnostic criteria for ASUC in treated patients: all 3 major criteria (CRP ≥2x ULN, ≥6 stools/24 hours, ≥50% with visible blood) plus ≥2 of 6 minor criteria (hypoalbuminemia, tachycardia, nocturnal defecation, anemia, fever, leukocytosis); high-dose corticosteroid subgroup uses modified thresholds (CRP ≥1x ULN, ≥33% bloody stools).
ContextAddresses a gap in Truelove-Witts (1955), which did not distinguish between treatment-naive and treated patients; ASUC can be missed in those already on maintenance therapy. These updated criteria incorporate modern immunosuppressive treatment and advanced therapies.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes)

Decision at stakeidentify acute severe ulcerative colitis using diagnostic criteria to guide inpatient IV-steroid management

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids.

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

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); 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 - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism. Apply treat-to-target (STRIDE-II) to endoscopic improvement (MES 0-1). Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after DIAGNOSIS for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening.

ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes) ↗
Raine T … Higgins PDR · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD meta analysis · n=653 · Jul 20, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Meta-analysis: safety and efficacy of ustekinumab in pediatric inflammatory bowel disease patients with anti-TNF failure.

New evidencemeta-analysispediatricustekinumabanti-TNF
Clinical takeawayIn pediatric IBD patients with prior anti-TNF failure, consider UST as a second-line therapy. The remission rates (69% in Crohn's disease, 65% in ulcerative colitis at week 52) and favorable safety profile support offering this when anti-TNF does not work. Note that UC findings are based on limited data and warrant cautious interpretation.
What it foundUST achieved 68% clinical remission at week 52 (95% CI 58-79%) and 58% steroid-free remission in pediatric IBD patients with prior anti-TNF failure; adverse events in 20% and serious adverse events in 1%.
ContextAnti-TNF therapy is first-line for moderate-severe pediatric IBD. Options after anti-TNF failure were previously sparse in the pediatric population. This meta-analysis of 15 studies establishes UST as an evidence-based alternative for treatment-refractory pediatric IBD, clarifying a key decision point for children who do not respond to initial therapy.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes)

Decision at stakeuse ustekinumab as second-line therapy in pediatric ulcerative colitis after anti-TNF failure

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. PREVIOUSLY TNF-EXPOSED, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab; lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group.

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

Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); 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 - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism. Apply treat-to-target (STRIDE-II) to endoscopic improvement (MES 0-1). Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after DIAGNOSIS for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening.

ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes) ↗
Heng Z … Liu Y · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Hepatology· 1

Hepatology meta analysis · n=1,659 · Jul 22, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Prior decompensation Identifies Patients at High Mortality Risk Despite Standard Therapy After Variceal Hemorrhage: An IPD Meta-analysis.

New evidencevariceal bleedingcirrhosisasciteshepatic encephalopathy
Clinical takeawayIn patients with prior decompensation (ascites or encephalopathy) presenting with variceal hemorrhage, standard NSBB+EVL carries 25% 2-year mortality. Consider whether pre-emptive TIPS might be beneficial in this high-risk subgroup despite current guidelines recommending against it in Child-Pugh A-B, based on this evidence of substantially worse outcomes with standard therapy; definitive benefit requires further study.
What it foundIn Child-Pugh A-B cirrhotic patients with variceal hemorrhage treated with NSBB+EVL, prior decompensation identified substantially higher 2-year mortality: 25.1% vs 13.5% without (aHR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.7), with prior ascites showing aHR 1.8 (95% CI 1.2-2.6) and prior encephalopathy aHR 1.7 (95% CI 1.3-2.3).
ContextCurrent standard recommends NSBB+EVL (not pre-emptive TIPS) for variceal hemorrhage in Child-Pugh A-B patients. This meta-analysis identifies a substantial subgroup with nearly double the mortality risk despite standard therapy, suggesting current risk stratification for TIPS eligibility may inadequately capture highest-risk patients.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211.

Decision at stakewhether to consider TIPS in patients with variceal hemorrhage and prior decompensation

In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13.

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

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. Everything else in the current entry (HCC surveillance, transplant referral, nutrition, vaccination, ascites/SBP/HE/HRS/ACLF management) belongs to the separate documents listed as supporting sources and must not be attributed to this guidance. Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy. By vibration-controlled transient elastography, liver stiffness (LSM) under 10 kPa excludes cACLD, 10 to 14.9 kPa is suggestive and warrants further testing, and 15 kPa or above rules cACLD in. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. HVPG above 10 mm Hg) is ruled in non-invasively by LSM at or above 25 kPa alone, or LSM 20 to 24.9 kPa with platelets below 150 x 10^9/L, or LSM 15 to 19.9 kPa with platelets below 110 x 10^9/L. Where spleen stiffness measurement is available, values below 21 kPa argue against CSPH and above 50 kPa argue for it. These non-invasive cutoffs are conditional probability thresholds, not universal diagnostic rules, and hold only when their derivation conditions are met. They were established in compensated advanced chronic liver disease of viral (treated or untreated HBV/HCV), alcohol-related, or non-obese (BMI under 30) MASLD etiology, and are not validated for and should not be applied to cholestatic (e.g. PBC, PSC), vascular, or other etiologies, in which different cutoffs apply. They also require a technically reliable liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, fasting, at least 10 valid acquisitions, and an IQR/median ratio below 30 percent, and are confounded by factors that raise liver stiffness independently of fibrosis, including ALT flares or acute hepatitis, extrahepatic cholestasis, hepatic congestion (right heart failure), and recent food intake; Baveno VII recommends confirming an LSM-based rule-in on a repeat measurement obtained on a separate day. The spleen stiffness cutoffs apply only to a dedicated 100 Hz spleen module, carry a higher technical failure rate, are machine-dependent, and are not interchangeable with values obtained using the standard 50 Hz liver probe. Where these population or acquisition conditions are not met, the numeric thresholds do not reliably classify CSPH, and HVPG measurement or endoscopy is required rather than a non-invasive determination. Preserve the gray zone: LSM 15 to 25 kPa without a qualifying platelet count is explicitly indeterminate (roughly 40 to 60 percent of cACLD patients) and calls for HVPG and/or endoscopy rather than assumption in either direction. Once CSPH is established, offer a non-selective beta-blocker, carvedilol preferred at 12.5 mg/day, to lower portal pressure and prevent FIRST decompensation, on the strength of PREDESCI. This is a treat-the-pressure strategy rather than a treat-the-varices one: because a patient already on NSBB for CSPH would not have management changed by the finding, screening endoscopy becomes unnecessary for most such patients. Screening EGD is still indicated where elastography is unavailable, technically difficult, or gives discordant results, and for patients who do not meet non-invasive criteria. Standard beta-blocker contraindications (severe asthma, advanced heart block, bradyarrhythmias) continue to apply. For varices needing treatment managed endoscopically, band ligation is repeated every 2 to 4 weeks until obliteration, with surveillance endoscopy at 6 months and annually thereafter. Gastric/cardiofundal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate injection or EUS-guided coil embolization rather than banding, with hepatology involvement. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13. Keep the document's own qualifier: there is no established universal MELD or CTP cutoff at which TIPS is mandatory, and the decision is case-by-case with hepatology consultation. Statin use in compensated cirrhosis is NOT a recommendation traceable to this document; the current entry's statin sentence needs its own source or removal. Verification note: the Hepatology full text is paywalled (402/403 on direct fetch). Document identity, title, year, volume, pages and authorship were confirmed via Crossref and PubMed metadata; the numeric thresholds above were corroborated from two independent peer-reviewed commentaries on this specific guidance and match the Baveno VII rule-of-five, but were not read verbatim from the primary PDF. A human should confirm the exact guidance-statement wording against the full text before this entry is treated as quotation-grade.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Turco L … Garcia-Tsao G · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Pancreas/Biliary· 1

Pancreas/Biliary retrospective · n=402,663 · Jul 24, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

Impact of initial severity and progression pattern of new-onset diabetes on pancreatic cancer risk: a 15-year longitudinal nationwide cohort study.

New evidencepancreatic cancerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayBe aware that pancreatic cancer risk is elevated in new-onset diabetes (NOD), particularly with higher initial treatment intensity (aHRs 3.01, 4.32, 5.60 for no antidiabetics, oral antidiabetics, insulin) or rapid escalation within 6 months (aHR 6.50 vs stable). This association is strongest within 3 years of NOD diagnosis. No specific screening protocol is validated in this population.
What it foundPancreatic cancer risk increased stepwise with higher initial NOD treatment intensity (aHRs 3.01, 4.32, 5.60 for no antidiabetics, oral antidiabetics, insulin) and was highest in drug-naïve patients who escalated to treatment within 6 months (aHR 6.50).
ContextConfirms and refines prior evidence linking NOD to pancreatic cancer by showing risk varies with initial severity and progression pattern, particularly in the first 3 years after NOD diagnosis. Does not establish screening efficacy.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457.

Decision at stakeevaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol CT

Evaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol (multiphasic, contrast-enhanced) CT of the abdomen as the preferred imaging for diagnosis and staging (MRI/MRCP is an acceptable alternative); PET/CT may be added after, never as a substitute for, protocol CT/MRI in higher-risk situations.

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

Evaluate suspected pancreatic adenocarcinoma with a dedicated pancreatic-protocol (multiphasic, contrast-enhanced) CT of the abdomen as the preferred imaging for diagnosis and staging (MRI/MRCP is an acceptable alternative); PET/CT may be added after, never as a substitute for, protocol CT/MRI in higher-risk situations. Obtain tissue confirmation, preferably by EUS-guided FNA/FNB with core biopsy where feasible; biopsy is generally required before neoadjuvant or palliative therapy, whereas patients with clearly resectable disease may proceed to surgery without preoperative biopsy. Measure baseline CA 19-9 (interpret after biliary decompression / with normal bilirubin; it can be falsely low in Lewis-antigen-negative patients and falsely elevated with cholestasis). Offer GERMLINE testing for inherited susceptibility to EVERY patient with confirmed pancreatic adenocarcinoma regardless of family history, using a comprehensive multi-gene panel; separately, for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease who are candidates for anti-cancer therapy, obtain TUMOR/SOMATIC molecular profiling (broad NGS; RNA-based assays improve fusion detection; cell-free/liquid biopsy if tissue is insufficient). Assign resectability, resectable, borderline resectable, locally advanced (unresectable), or metastatic, by multidisciplinary review, ideally at a high-volume center. RESECTABLE disease: upfront resection (pancreaticoduodenectomy for head/uncinate; distal pancreatectomy ± splenectomy for body/tail) followed by adjuvant therapy, or neoadjuvant therapy in selected high-risk patients; preferred adjuvant regimen is modified FOLFIRINOX in patients able to tolerate it, ideally begun within 12 weeks of surgery, for a total of ~6 months of perioperative systemic therapy. BORDERLINE RESECTABLE and LOCALLY ADVANCED disease: neoadjuvant systemic therapy, with or without subsequent chemoradiation/RT, then restaging and reassessment for resection. METASTATIC disease by performance status: good PS (ECOG 0-1, adequate organ function), first-line FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX, NALIRIFOX, or gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, with clinical trial preferred; after ~4-6 months without progression, transition to a maintenance strategy (including olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 carriers who have NOT progressed on first-line platinum-based therapy), a clinical trial, or a treatment break; intermediate PS (ECOG 2), clinical trial preferred, otherwise less-intensive first-line therapy (preferred gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel [category 1], or single-agent gemcitabine or capecitabine, or FOLFOX/FOLFIRI/CapeOx), since the intensive triplets (FOLFIRINOX/modified FOLFIRINOX and NALIRIFOX) are limited to ECOG 0-1 and are generally not appropriate at ECOG 2, with the same maintenance-versus-progression reassessment applied after ~4-6 months without progression; poor PS (ECOG 3-4), palliative/best supportive care, with single-agent chemotherapy or a biomarker-directed agent only if clinically appropriate. Treat by molecular target wherever an actionable alteration is present, across lines: pembrolizumab (or dostarlimab) for MSI-H/dMMR and pembrolizumab for TMB-H, olaparib for germline BRCA1/2 (maintenance after platinum), larotrectinib/entrectinib for NTRK fusions, selpercatinib for RET fusions, dabrafenib + trametinib for BRAF V600E, erdafitinib for FGFR2 alterations, fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan for HER2-positive disease, zenocutuzumab for NRG1 fusion-positive disease, and (in recent NCCN versions) KRAS G12C inhibitors (adagrasib/sotorasib), several of these after prior systemic therapy. Integrate supportive care throughout: relieve obstructive jaundice with an endoscopic self-expanding metal stent in non-operative or neoadjuvant pathways, but do NOT perform routine preoperative biliary drainage before planned upfront resection; treat exocrine insufficiency with pancreatic enzyme replacement titrated to symptoms (common starting dose ~40,000-50,000 units of lipase with main meals, roughly half with snacks, increased as needed); manage refractory pain with celiac plexus neurolysis or palliative RT; relieve gastric outlet obstruction with surgical or EUS-guided gastrojejunostomy (or enteral stenting); and provide VTE prophylaxis, nutritional support, and early palliative care.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Lee M … Chung MJ · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Motility· 3

Motility prospective cohort · n=59 · Jul 21, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Clinical Trial: Effectiveness and Safety of a Novel Anal Insert Device for Treatment of Faecal Incontinence.

New therapyfecal incontinence
Clinical takeawayConsider StaySure anal insert for women with moderate-to-severe fecal incontinence unresponsive to conservative treatment (diet, pelvic floor physical therapy, medications), as an alternative to injectable agents or sacral nerve stimulation; device size (10 or 13 mm) is individualized during a 2-4 week fitting period when tolerance can be assessed. Applicability in male patients less established.
What it found76.3% of patients achieved ≥50% reduction in fecal incontinence episodes; weekly episodes declined from 5.4 to 2.1 (69% reduction; p<0.001); quality-of-life score improved from 1.9 to 2.3 (p<0.001). Well-tolerated with no serious adverse events, though device intolerance contributed to a minority of screen failures during fitting.
ContextAdds a reversible, mechanical option to the treatment algorithm for medically-refractory fecal incontinence, complementing existing injectable (dextranomer), electrical (sacral nerve stimulation), and behavioral (biofeedback) approaches.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), "The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Fecal Incontinence," Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2023

Decision at stakeuse of bridge devices in the stepwise treatment of medically-refractory fecal incontinence

Manage with a stepwise ladder: optimize stool consistency (fiber, loperamide, bile-acid sequestrant, or TCA neuromodulator), pelvic floor PT plus biofeedback, skin protection and bridge devices, then escalate to surgical therapy.

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

First exclude emergency/secondary causes (cauda equina/cord compression, fecal impaction with overflow) with a mandatory digital rectal exam, screen for eating disorder before dietary restriction, and classify the subtype (urge, passive, overflow, mixed) since it drives therapy. Work up loose-stool FI for inflammatory, infectious, and bile-acid drivers before labeling idiopathic. Manage with a stepwise ladder: optimize stool consistency (fiber, loperamide, bile-acid sequestrant, or TCA neuromodulator), pelvic floor PT plus biofeedback, skin protection and bridge devices, then escalate to surgical therapy. Prescribe the antimotility/neuromodulator agents with their indications, dosing, and safety limits: loperamide is first-line for loose-stool/urge FI, start low (e.g., 2 mg before meals or as needed) and titrate to stool consistency while staying within the FDA-approved maximum (8 mg/day OTC, 16 mg/day prescription), because the FDA warns that higher-than-recommended doses cause QT prolongation, torsades de pointes, and cardiac arrest; the TCA neuromodulator (e.g., amitriptyline, typically low-dose ~20 mg) is an off-label option reserved for loose-stool/idiopathic FI, and the AGS Beers Criteria recommend avoiding TCAs such as amitriptyline in older adults given their strong anticholinergic burden, sedation, orthostatic hypotension, and fall risk. Per the dedicated ASCRS 2023 fecal-incontinence guideline (updating ASCRS 2007, superseding reliance on ACG's broader 2021 anorectal-disorders guideline as the primary specialty source), sacral neuromodulation is a first-line surgical option for incontinent patients WITH OR WITHOUT a defined anal sphincter defect (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence), it is not gated on documenting a sphincter defect. Sphincteroplasty remains appropriate for symptomatic patients with a defined external anal sphincter defect; repeat sphincteroplasty after a failed overlapping repair should generally be avoided in favor of other modalities. Antegrade continence enemas are an option before colostomy, which remains last resort.

American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), "The American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Fecal Incontinence," Diseases of the Colon & Rectum, 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Bharucha AE … Szarka LA · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Motility rct · Jul 20, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Comparative Effects of Four Dietary Approaches on Symptom Severity and Quality of Life in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Practice-changingIBSdiet therapy
Clinical takeawayFor adult IBS patients aged 19-65 years requiring dietary management, recommend restriction-based diets (LFD, GFD, or LFGFD) over traditional advice; all three achieve clinical symptom improvement in substantially more patients (100% vs 61.5%). LFD and LFGFD specifically showed greater mean symptom severity reduction. Since quality-of-life benefits were equivalent across all approaches, choice among restricted diets can be individualized by patient tolerability and preference. Note that these findings reflect the restriction phase only; full dietary management typically includes reintroduction, which was not evaluated here.
What it foundLow-FODMAP and combined LFGFD diets reduced IBS symptom severity significantly more than traditional dietary advice (p=0.002). All three restricted diets (LFD, GFD, LFGFD) achieved ≥50-point IBS-SSS improvement in 100% of patients versus 61.5% on traditional diet (p=0.001). Quality-of-life improvements occurred across all four dietary approaches without significant between-group differences.
ContextProvides direct comparative evidence that restriction-based diets outperform generic dietary advice for IBS symptom control. Quality-of-life benefits were independent of dietary approach, suggesting symptom reduction and overall well-being respond to dietary restriction differently.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association, Chey WD, Hashash JG, Manning L, Chang L. "AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Diet in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Expert Review." Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1737-1745 (doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.248; PMID 35337654)

Decision at stakeLow-FODMAP diet is more effective than traditional dietary advice for reducing IBS symptom severity

Per AGA best practice advice: dietary intervention is most appropriate for IBS patients who have insight into meal-related symptoms and are motivated to make dietary changes. The low-FODMAP diet is currently the most evidence-based diet intervention for IBS and is delivered as a structured 3-phase protocol, NOT lifelong restriction: (1) restriction of high-FODMAP foods lasting NO MORE than 4-6 weeks, (2) reintroduction of FODMAP foods, and (3) personalization based on reintroduction results.

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

Per AGA best practice advice: dietary intervention is most appropriate for IBS patients who have insight into meal-related symptoms and are motivated to make dietary changes. Soluble fiber (e.g., psyllium/ispaghula) is efficacious for global IBS symptoms and is a reasonable initial option, most suitable in constipation-predominant IBS; insoluble fiber (wheat bran) is NOT. The low-FODMAP diet is currently the most evidence-based diet intervention for IBS and is delivered as a structured 3-phase protocol, NOT lifelong restriction: (1) restriction of high-FODMAP foods lasting NO MORE than 4-6 weeks, (2) reintroduction of FODMAP foods, and (3) personalization based on reintroduction results. Any specific diet intervention should be attempted for a predetermined length of time; if there is no clinical response, the diet should be ABANDONED and a different diet or therapy tried, rather than continued indefinitely. Refer willing and appropriate patients to a GI registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) to implement and supervise the diet. Poor candidates for restrictive diet interventions include patients who already consume few culprit foods, those at risk for malnutrition, those who are food insecure, and those with an eating disorder or uncontrolled psychiatric disorder; routine screening for disordered eating/eating disorders by careful dietary history is critical before starting a restrictive diet.

American Gastroenterological Association, Chey WD, Hashash JG, Manning L, Chang L. "AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Role of Diet in Irritable Bowel Syndrome: Expert Review." Gastroenterology. 2022;162(6):1737-1745 (doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.248; PMID 35337654) · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Otay Lule N … Lule KO · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Motility review · Jul 22, 2026 · JAMA · IF 63.1

Gastroparesis: A Review.

Guideline / reviewgastroparesisepidemiologyguideline
Clinical takeawayIn diabetic patients with nausea, vomiting, or early satiety, gastroparesis should be high on the differential and glycemic optimization is core to management. Confirm diagnosis with scintigraphy or C13 breath test; before testing, discontinue medications that delay gastric emptying (opioids, cannabis, anticholinergics, GLP-1 agonists). Then stratify by severity: mild cases use a small-particle, low-fat diet plus antiemetics (5-HT3 or H1 antagonists); moderate cases add prokinetics (metoclopramide or erythromycin); severe cases require liquid diet or jejunal feeding.
What it foundType 2 diabetes accounts for 51.7% of gastroparesis cases; diagnostic criterion is gastric retention >10% at 4 hours on scintigraphy or C13 spirulina breath test, with severity graded as mild (10-15%), moderate (16-35%), or severe (>35% retention)
ContextSynthesizes current AGA (2022) and ACG (2022) diagnostic and treatment guidelines with epidemiological data. Confirms diabetes as the dominant etiology and codifies the standardized severity classification that guides therapy intensity.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), 'AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Management of Gastroparesis', Staller K, Parkman HP, Greer KB, Leiman DA, Zhou MJ, Singh S, Camilleri M, Altayar O; AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. Gastroenterology. 2025 Oct;169(5):828-861. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.08.004. PMID 40976635 (published online 19 Sept 2025)

Decision at stakeDiagnose gastroparesis using 4-hour gastric emptying scintigraphy with >10% retention

PROCEDURES (medically refractory disease): AGA suggests against G-POEM EXCEPT for selected patients with medically refractory disease (Rec 9, conditional/low certainty), candidates should have gastroparesis confirmed on an appropriately performed 4-hour gastric emptying study, generally with at least moderate delay (20% retention at 4 hours with the EggBeaters meal), at least six months of moderate cardinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting and/or postprandial fullness), and a prior trial of other treatments including a prokinetic such as metoclopramide plus an antiemetic.

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

Scope: individuals with suspected or confirmed idiopathic or diabetic gastroparesis, including medically refractory disease. All 12 recommendations are CONDITIONAL ('suggests'), at low or very low certainty of evidence; none are strong. DIAGNOSIS (Rec 1): AGA suggests against a 2-hour (or shorter) gastric emptying study and in favour of a 4-hour study [conditional, low certainty], because patients with normal emptying at 2 hours may be reclassified as delayed at 4 hours. The 4-hour value must be measured directly at 4 hours, not mathematically derived from earlier time points. Testing should be done without confounders: hyperglycaemia and drugs that alter emptying (opioids, GLP-1 receptor agonists, prokinetics). Two meals have well-established normal values: the low-fat Tougas/EggBeaters meal (liquid egg white, bread, jam, water; 250 kcal, 2% fat) and the Mayo Clinic meal (two whole eggs, bread, skim milk; 320 kcal, 30% fat), the latter more thoroughly validated. PHARMACOTHERAPY: AGA suggests USING metoclopramide (Rec 2) and USING erythromycin (Rec 3), each conditional/very low certainty. Metoclopramide, oral tablet/liquid or intranasal, start 5 mg before meals, may increase up to 10 mg before meals; discuss potential side effects before starting (tardive dyskinesia risk noted, absolute risk low; higher risk of adverse events leading to discontinuation in older patients and those on psychotropics); assess efficacy and side effects at 4-8 weeks to decide on continuation, then monitor for the duration of therapy. Patients placing higher value on adverse-event risk and lower value on symptom improvement may reasonably decline it. Erythromycin, low dose (e.g. 100-150 mg by mouth, 30 min before meals) to reduce side effects seen at 250-500 mg; ethylsuccinate oral suspension allows smaller doses since tablets come only in high strengths; prokinetic via motilin agonism with no direct antiemetic effect; tachyphylaxis with prolonged continuous use is managed by drug holidays (e.g. 3 weeks on, 1 week off); cautions include QT prolongation, CYP3A interactions and antibiotic resistance. AGA suggests AGAINST, as first-line therapy, with shared-decision carve-outs, domperidone (Rec 4), prucalopride (Rec 5), aprepitant (Rec 6), nortriptyline (Rec 7.1) and buspirone (Rec 7.2) [conditional; low to very low certainty], and against cannabidiol EXCEPT in the context of a clinical trial (Rec 8, conditional/low certainty). Each carries an explicit shared-decision-making carve-out naming who may still reasonably use it: domperidone for patients who had neurological side effects on metoclopramide or who have movement disorders such as Parkinson's disease (US use requires an FDA expanded-access IND, and the sole US supplier is exiting; obtain baseline potassium, magnesium and ECG QTc, monitor on therapy, reassess at 4-8 weeks); prucalopride particularly in idiopathic gastroparesis (patients with diabetic or connective-tissue-disease-related gastroparesis are less likely to respond) and in those with coexisting chronic idiopathic constipation, noting the depression/suicidality monitoring warning; aprepitant for nausea and vomiting not helped by 5-HT3 antagonists such as ondansetron, recognising it has no effect on gastric motor function; nortriptyline for coexisting IBS or significant abdominal pain, started at low dose and titrated slowly, framed to patients as a peripheral neuromodulator; buspirone for predominant early satiety and bloating. For cannabidiol the panel notes the single positive trial used pharmaceutical-grade Epidiolex, which is not available for clinical use in gastroparesis, that commercial formulations are unregulated and variable in potency, and that THC-containing products raise cannabinoid hyperemesis concern. PROCEDURES (medically refractory disease): AGA suggests against G-POEM EXCEPT for selected patients with medically refractory disease (Rec 9, conditional/low certainty), candidates should have gastroparesis confirmed on an appropriately performed 4-hour gastric emptying study, generally with at least moderate delay (20% retention at 4 hours with the EggBeaters meal), at least six months of moderate cardinal symptoms (nausea, vomiting and/or postprandial fullness), and a prior trial of other treatments including a prokinetic such as metoclopramide plus an antiemetic. AGA suggests against pyloric botulinum toxin injection (Rec 11, conditional/very low certainty), noting that retreatment as often as every 3 months limits cost-effectiveness and that repeat treatment may cause pyloric scarring complicating later G-POEM; patients placing higher value on endoscopic intervention and lower value on chronic medical therapy may reasonably attempt it. AGA suggests against the ROUTINE INITIAL use of gastric electrical stimulation (Rec 12, conditional/very low certainty), reserving it, as with G-POEM, for select patients whose symptoms are refractory to medical therapy; patients placing higher value on potential nausea/vomiting improvement and lower value on the increase in serious adverse events may reasonably select GES, and should be told it aims to improve nausea and vomiting, not abdominal pain. For surgical pyloric interventions (pyloromyotomy or pyloroplasty) AGA makes NO recommendation and designates a knowledge gap, advising use only in the context of clinical trials (Rec 10). NON-GRADED adjuncts appear only as implementation considerations, not recommendations: panel content experts use small-particle, low-fat, low-residue diets before or alongside pharmacotherapy, and as-needed antiemetics (5-HT3 antagonists e.g. ondansetron, H1 antagonists e.g. promethazine, D2 antagonists e.g. prochlorperazine); efficacy of pharmacological interventions is assessed at 4-8 weeks. The guideline does NOT address exclusion of mechanical obstruction, enteral/J-tube nutrition, glycaemic targets, or perioperative GLP-1 RA management, those remain with the supporting documents.

American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), 'AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Management of Gastroparesis', Staller K, Parkman HP, Greer KB, Leiman DA, Zhou MJ, Singh S, Camilleri M, Altayar O; AGA Clinical Guidelines Committee. Gastroenterology. 2025 Oct;169(5):828-861. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2025.08.004. PMID 40976635 (published online 19 Sept 2025) · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Camilleri M · JAMA · IF 63.1 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week18 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 week15 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.