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 №4 · week of Jul 26, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: Nature Medicine / J Hepatology / Gastroenterology / Gut
Selectivity
12.7%
20 in the issue of 158 screened
in the issue 20in depth 38held 17filtered out 83
87.3% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 38 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. 18 of the 20 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
647688narrative reviewguideline →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

use patient navigation and open access colonoscopy to boost follow-up after abnormal stool tests, combine microbiome testing with FIT to boost adenoma detection in CRC screening, and use MRE, VCTE-LSM, Agile 3+, or Agile 4 to diagnose cirrhosis in MASLD (AUC 0.87-0.91).

The 20 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 38 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD6Hepatology12Esophagus/Reflux4Pancreas/Biliary2Endoscopy21Motility7Colorectal3Nutrition3
Type

This week to know

the 6 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
Endoscopy guideline · Jul 29, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Improving follow-up of abnormal stool test results used for colorectal cancer screening.

Guideline / reviewcolorectal cancer screeninghealth servicescolonoscopyguideline
Clinical takeawayImplement coordinated strategies such as patient navigation, digital tools, and open access colonoscopy to improve follow-up colonoscopy rates after abnormal stool tests.
What it foundFollow-up colonoscopy rates after abnormal stool tests remain suboptimal, with actionable strategies identified to improve adherence.
ContextConfirms the known gap in follow-up colonoscopy after abnormal stool tests and provides evidence-based interventions to address it, aligning with current guidelines emphasizing timely follow-up.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update 2026 (Calderwood et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol) / USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018

Decision at stakeensuring timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive stool tests

… For ages 76-85 the decision is individualized (USPSTF Grade C). Under USMSTF, people who are up to date with negative prior screening, especially a high-quality colonoscopy, should consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy falls below 10 years. … (3) Colonoscopy adverse events rise with age whatever the indication, so the reasoning behind any colonoscopy decision in someone over 75 should be documented in the EHR (BPA 8). …

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

The thresholds on file still hold, and the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (Calderwood, Yoshida, Das, Falk; Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, online 2026-08-03) agrees with them while adding to them. Average-risk adults are screened routinely from age 45 to 75 (USPSTF 2021: Grade B for 45-49, Grade A for 50-75; USMSTF and ACS agree). For ages 76-85 the decision is individualized (USPSTF Grade C). Under USMSTF, people who are up to date with negative prior screening, especially a high-quality colonoscopy, should consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy falls below 10 years. People who were never adequately screened may be screened up to 85, depending on age and comorbidity. Screening is not recommended at 86 or older. The 2026 AGA update adds four things. (1) After age 75, the decision to continue screening (BPA 6) or polyp surveillance (BPA 7) should be individualized by weighing benefit, screening or polyp history, comorbidities and risks; this now explicitly covers post-polypectomy surveillance, not only screening. (2) Formal comorbidity assessment and life-expectancy tools may help separate older adults likely to benefit from those likely to be harmed (BPA 1). (3) Colonoscopy adverse events rise with age whatever the indication, so the reasoning behind any colonoscopy decision in someone over 75 should be documented in the EHR (BPA 8). (4) For Barrett's esophagus, continuing surveillance is a shared decision, and a patient who could not tolerate endoscopic, surgical or oncologic treatment should stop surveillance at any age (BPA 3 and 5). The AGA statements are expert-opinion Best Practice Advice without formal evidence grades, and they set no new numeric age or life-expectancy cutoffs. New alarm features (iron-deficiency anemia, GI bleeding, change in bowel habit, weight loss) still warrant diagnostic workup at any age; this is general practice, not a guideline statement.

AGA Clinical Practice Update 2026 (Calderwood et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol) / USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018 · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Levin TR … Williams KN · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal meta analysis · Jul 30, 2026 · J Gastroenterology · IF 5.7

Clinical applications of gut microbiome for non-invasive diagnosis of colorectal neoplasia.

Diagnosticmicrobiomebiomarkercolorectal cancercolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayMicrobiome-based stool testing shows promise for improving adenoma detection in CRC screening, particularly for early-stage lesions missed by FIT alone. However, further validation and integration into screening programs are needed before clinical adoption.
What it foundA microbial panel (Fusobacterium nucleatum, Hungatella hathewayi, Christensenella hongkongensis, and m3 gene) demonstrated improved sensitivity for adenoma detection compared to FIT alone, with comparable accuracy for CRC.
ContextCurrent stool-based tests like FIT have limited sensitivity for adenoma detection. This study confirms microbial signatures as viable biomarkers and highlights their potential to enhance early CRC screening.
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 potential use of gut microbiome biomarkers for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening

… 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. … The American Cancer Society's May 2026 guideline agrees on the 45-75 range, no screening after 85, and colonoscopy as the preferred option. …

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

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 ↗
Cui C … Chan FKL · Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 5.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=357 · Jul 24, 2026 · Nature Medicine · IF 52.5

Prospective validation of imaging and serum diagnostic biomarkers of steatohepatitis and fibrosis in MASLD: the LITMUS Imaging Study.

New evidenceMASLDcirrhosisbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider using MRE, VCTE-LSM, Agile 3+, or Agile 4 as noninvasive biomarkers for diagnosing cirrhosis in MASLD patients, as they demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy exceeding the MAC.
What it foundMRE (AUC 0.91; P < 0.01), VCTE-LSM (AUC 0.87; P < 0.01), Agile 3+ (AUC 0.89; P < 0.01), and Agile 4 (AUC 0.88; P < 0.01) exceeded the minimum acceptable performance criterion (MAC) for diagnosing cirrhosis in MASLD patients, as compared to other biomarkers.
ContextThis study validates the diagnostic accuracy of several noninvasive biomarkers for MASLD-related fibrosis and cirrhosis, confirming their utility in clinical practice for patients with MASLD.
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakethe choice of non-invasive tests for fibrosis staging in MASLD

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. … A score at or above the cutoff goes to a second-line test: VCTE, or ELF if elastography is not available. … Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. …

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

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. The AGA 2026 MetALD update sets MetALD at about 140-350 g/week of alcohol in women and 210-420 g/week in men, averaged over at least 3 months. MASLD therefore means under about 140 g/week (women) or 210 g/week (men), and drinking above the MetALD range is ALD. Assess alcohol use in every patient with steatotic liver disease at diagnosis and at least once a year, by interview, a validated questionnaire (e.g., AUDIT-C) and/or biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Advise every patient with steatotic liver disease to stop drinking. Screen people with type 2 diabetes, people with overweight or obesity plus at least one more metabolic risk factor, and anyone with incidental steatosis or raised aminotransferases. Use FIB-4 first. A score below 1.3 (below 2.0 at age 65 or older) is low risk: the patient stays in primary care and repeats FIB-4 every 1-2 years. A score at or above the cutoff goes to a second-line test: VCTE, or ELF if elastography is not available. VCTE below 8 kPa is low risk. VCTE of 8 kPa or more, or ELF of 9.2 or more, means clinically significant fibrosis is likely and the patient should be referred to hepatology. Read liver stiffness with caution if the patient is actively drinking. Reserve biopsy for discordant or unclear results. Lifestyle change is the base of treatment for everyone: at least 5% weight loss improves steatosis, and 10% or more is usually needed for fibrosis to improve. Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. The NIT ranges that stand in for F2-F3 differ by society. AASLD uses VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa or ELF 9.2-10.5. EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 frames the treatable high-risk group as, for example, VCTE 10-20 kPa, MRE 3.1-5.0 kPa or ELF 9.8-11.3. Two drugs are approved: resmetirom (80 mg oral daily, or 100 mg at body weight of 100 kg or more; AASLD Oct 2024 guidance) and semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously once weekly (FDA accelerated approval Aug 2025, AASLD Nov 2025 guidance; in ESSENCE, MASH resolved without fibrosis worsening in 62.9% vs 34.3% on placebo). EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 says to choose between them by patient preference, risks and cardio-renal-metabolic profile. Semaglutide may be preferred with obesity, type 2 diabetes, established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk. Resmetirom may be prioritised without obesity, or when the patient is already on or cannot tolerate a GLP-1 receptor agonist. On semaglutide, monitoring includes nutrition and sarcopenia assessment, and fibrosis NITs are used over time to judge response. In MASH cirrhosis, resmetirom and semaglutide appear safe but should not be used as MASH-targeted treatment until liver-related benefit is shown. Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options under the AASLD 2023 guidance. Neither resmetirom nor semaglutide has been formally studied in MetALD. Manage cardiometabolic risk in every patient whatever the fibrosis stage, including statins for ASCVD and control of glucose and blood pressure. On semaglutide, watch for GI side effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, retinopathy, loss of lean mass). For MetALD, treat moderate or severe alcohol use disorder with medication plus behavioural therapy, correct micronutrient deficiencies (folate, thiamine, vitamin D), and do not offer bariatric or endobariatric procedures. HCC surveillance with ultrasound, with or without AFP, every 6 months is indicated only when cirrhosis is present.

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Pavlides M … Anstee QM · Nature Medicine · IF 52.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Pancreas/Biliary review · Jul 29, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

From guidelines to precision care: How contemporary evidence is transforming IPMN management.

Guideline / reviewIPMNpancreatic cancerguidelinecost-effectiveness
Clinical takeawayConsider personalized IPMN management based on subtype (main-duct/mixed vs. branch-duct), cyst stability, growth rate, age, and overall health. Avoid unnecessary surveillance for low-risk branch-duct IPMNs.
What it foundRecent evidence refines IPMN risk stratification, with main-duct or mixed-type lesions having higher risk of high-grade dysplasia or invasive cancer, while small branch-duct lesions often remain stable.
ContextUpdates prior guidelines by incorporating long-term natural history data and personalized risk models, moving beyond one-size-fits-all surveillance.
Emergingsuggested 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 stakemanagement of intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (IPMNs) as precursors to pancreatic adenocarcinoma

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 ↗
Ricci C … Crippa S · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=174 · Jul 24, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Combined prophylactic vessel coagulation and high-density complete defect closure after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection.

New evidenceESDhemostasis
Clinical takeawayConsider combining prophylactic vessel coagulation with high-density complete defect closure (using standard clips or advanced closure devices) after colorectal ESD to reduce delayed bleeding and adverse events, noting that cases with intraprocedural perforation, incomplete closure, or use of hemostatic gels or powders were excluded.
What it foundCombining prophylactic vessel coagulation with high-density complete defect closure after colorectal ESD reduced delayed bleeding to 0% vs 6.9% and composite delayed adverse events to 3.5% vs 12.7%, compared to coagulation alone.
ContextThe literature reports that combining prophylactic vessel coagulation with high-density complete defect closure may improve safety outcomes in colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection, though evidence is limited to a single study.
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.

de Sire R … Maselli R · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Esophagus/Reflux review · Jul 30, 2026 · J Neurogastro Motil · IF 3.4

Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease and Reflux-like Phenotypes: Using Lyon Consensus 2.0 to Guide Clinical Approach.

Guideline / reviewGERDproton pump inhibitorsesophageal motilityguideline
Clinical takeawayUse Lyon 2.0 criteria to phenotype reflux-like symptoms in patients with unclear diagnoses after initial evaluation: manage mucosal injury with reflux treatment and surveillance; treat abnormal reflux burden with reflux therapy; address E-DGBI with functional disorder management. Assess for overlapping hypervigilance/anxiety. Specific reflux burden thresholds and criteria are detailed in the source.
What it foundThe Lyon Consensus 2.0 integrates mucosal injury (Montreal), abnormal reflux burden (specific thresholds not provided here; see source), and Rome V criteria to phenotype reflux-like symptoms into GERD (mucosal injury or abnormal reflux) vs. E-DGBI (functional).
ContextRefines prior Montreal (mucosal injury) and Rome (functional) criteria by adding Lyon's reflux burden thresholds, enabling clearer phenotyping and targeted management in select patients with ambiguous presentations.
Reinforcessuggested 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

Decision at stakethe diagnosis and phenotyping of GERD and reflux-like symptoms

… 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). …

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

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 ↗
Schroeder MK, Gyawali CP · Journal of Neurogastroenterology and Motility · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 14, in full

IBD· 3

IBD retrospective · n=919 · Jul 28, 2026 · J Gastroenterology · IF 5.7

Impact of 5-aminosalicylic acid intolerance on progression to difficult-to-treat ulcerative colitis: a retrospective cohort study.

New evidenceulcerative colitis
Clinical takeawayCharacterize 5-ASA intolerance phenotypes, particularly acute intolerance syndrome (AIS), in UC patients to stratify risk of progression to difficult-to-treat UC and inform individualized therapeutic strategies.
What it found5-ASA intolerance increased progression to difficult-to-treat UC (sHR 2.07, 95% CI 1.14-3.75), driven by acute intolerance syndrome (sHR 3.25, 95% CI 1.64-6.45).
ContextConfirms prior associations of 5-ASA intolerance with poorer outcomes in UC patients but refines understanding by identifying acute intolerance syndrome as the primary driver of progression to difficult-to-treat 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 staketreat mild-moderate ulcerative colitis with 5-ASA

… 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. …

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 ↗
Ohno M … Iwashita T · Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 5.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD retrospective · n=810 · Jul 26, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

The hostile abdomen dilemma: the safety of primary anastomosis in the presence of an intraoperative abscess in Crohn disease.

New evidenceCrohn's diseaseIBD surgery
Clinical takeawayConsider primary anastomosis in selected Crohn disease patients with intraoperative abscess at experienced centers, as it does not independently increase complications versus non-abscess cases, despite higher rates of open conversion (29.3% vs 10.3%) and fecal diversion (24.8% vs 6.2%).
What it foundIn propensity-matched patients with Crohn disease undergoing ileocecal resection, intraoperative abscess did not increase 30-day anastomotic leak (10.1% vs 11.7%, P=0.718) or severe complications (8.2% vs 10.8%, P=0.480) compared to non-abscess cases.
ContextChallenges current guideline preference for fecal diversion in abscess settings, showing comparable safety in matched cohorts at experienced centers.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakethe safety of primary anastomosis in the presence of an intraoperative abscess in Crohn disease

… MILD-TO-MODERATE: recommend against oral mesalamine; sulfasalazine only for symptomatic mild colonic CD; ileal-release budesonide 9 mg for induction in ileocecal disease but not for maintenance. … ACG perianal (infliximab first; drain abscesses and place setons before escalating), postoperative (endoscopy at 6-12 months; anti-TNF strong, vedolizumab conditional in high-risk patients) and intra-abdominal abscess (>2 cm: antibiotics plus drainage, hold immunosuppression) positions are unchanged. …

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. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS.

Our full summary of this standard

Two current US guidelines govern Crohn's disease and should be read together. ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al.) remains the reference for diagnosis, mild-to-moderate disease, perianal, postoperative and abscess management. DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. MILD-TO-MODERATE: recommend against oral mesalamine; sulfasalazine only for symptomatic mild colonic CD; ileal-release budesonide 9 mg for induction in ileocecal disease but not for maintenance. MODERATE-TO-SEVERE (AGA Living Guideline, Scott et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1397-1448, 16 recommendations: 1 strong, 9 conditional, 6 knowledge gaps; updated quarterly, adult outpatients only): RECOMMEND infliximab, adalimumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab or upadacitinib over no treatment; SUGGEST certolizumab pegol or vedolizumab over no treatment. Advanced-therapy-naive: suggest higher-efficacy agents (infliximab, adalimumab, vedolizumab, ustekinumab, risankizumab, mirikizumab, guselkumab) over lower-efficacy ones (certolizumab pegol, upadacitinib). Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). Suggest against thiopurine monotherapy for induction; suggest it for maintenance of remission. Suggest SC/IM methotrexate monotherapy; suggest against oral methotrexate. In thiopurine-naive patients starting infliximab, suggest infliximab + thiopurine over infliximab alone. No recommendation on IFX + MTX, adalimumab + immunomodulator, or non-TNF biologic + immunomodulator. After ≥6 months of steroid-free remission on anti-TNF + immunomodulator, suggest withdrawing the immunomodulator and suggest against withdrawing the anti-TNF. SUGGEST upfront advanced therapy over step-up therapy (corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator first). No recommendation on treating to endoscopic vs symptomatic remission. The ACG 2025 moderate-to-severe recommendations (anti-TNF, IFX + thiopurine combination and IL-12/23/IL-23 agents, each strong/moderate; upadacitinib after anti-TNF exposure; steroids for short-term induction only; TPMT/NUDT15 testing before thiopurines) still stand alongside AGA. ACG perianal (infliximab first; drain abscesses and place setons before escalating), postoperative (endoscopy at 6-12 months; anti-TNF strong, vedolizumab conditional in high-risk patients) and intra-abdominal abscess (>2 cm: antibiotics plus drainage, hold immunosuppression) positions are unchanged. THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPY (AGA Clinical Practice Update, CGH 2026; details below come from AGA news coverage, not the full text, and are ungraded advice): get cross-sectional imaging before the procedure. Endoscopic balloon dilation is first-line for short strictures (about ≤4-5 cm) with few risk factors (fistula, prestenotic dilation >5 cm, high CRP, prior anti-TNF). Longer or multiple strictures, or ≥3 risk factors, favor surgery.

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Violante T … Rottoli M · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD retrospective · n=62,596 · Jul 28, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Risk of serious infection, myocardial infarction, stroke, and thromboembolic events in patients in the United States with ulcerative colitis treated with tofacitinib compared with biologic treatments.

New evidenceulcerative colitisJAK inhibitorsbiologicsepidemiology
Clinical takeawayIn patients with UC (including those with prior biologic exposure), tofacitinib showed no significant difference in serious infections, MI/stroke, or VTE risk compared to biologics in this claims analysis. Safety decisions should weigh all risks, not just these endpoints.
What it foundNo significant differences in serious infections (IR 2.62 vs 2.45-3.25/100 PY), MI/stroke (IR 0.13 vs 0.17-0.19/100 PY), or VTE (IR 0.17 vs 0.16-0.33/100 PY) between tofacitinib and biologics (ustekinumab, vedolizumab, TNFis) in UC.
ContextContrasts with prior concerns about tofacitinib's safety profile (e.g., FDA warnings on VTE risk). Reassures that real-world risks for these specific outcomes align with biologics.
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 stakepositioning tofacitinib in advanced therapy for ulcerative colitis

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. … Intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab. … Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. …

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 ↗
Rubin DT … Dubinsky MC · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Hepatology· 2

Hepatology rct · n=917 · Jul 29, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Clinical Trial: Phase 3 Trial of Resmetirom Versus Placebo in Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatohepatitis-Reanalysis of Fibrosis Stage 2-3 Subset.

New therapyMASLD
Clinical takeawayConsider resmetirom (80-100 mg daily) for MASH patients with F2-F3 fibrosis, given its efficacy in improving histology and LDL cholesterol, with no new safety signals.
What it foundResmetirom 80 mg and 100 mg achieved MASH resolution in 25.7% and 29.9% of F2-F3 fibrosis patients vs 9.5% with placebo, and fibrosis improvement in 26.5% and 28.9% vs 17.3% with placebo at 52 weeks.
ContextConfirms resmetirom's benefit in the F2-F3 fibrosis subgroup, aligning with its approved label and prior MAESTRO-NASH trial results.
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakeusing resmetirom for adults with MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis identified by non-invasive tests or biopsy

… Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. …

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

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. The AGA 2026 MetALD update sets MetALD at about 140-350 g/week of alcohol in women and 210-420 g/week in men, averaged over at least 3 months. MASLD therefore means under about 140 g/week (women) or 210 g/week (men), and drinking above the MetALD range is ALD. Assess alcohol use in every patient with steatotic liver disease at diagnosis and at least once a year, by interview, a validated questionnaire (e.g., AUDIT-C) and/or biomarkers such as phosphatidylethanol (PEth). Advise every patient with steatotic liver disease to stop drinking. Screen people with type 2 diabetes, people with overweight or obesity plus at least one more metabolic risk factor, and anyone with incidental steatosis or raised aminotransferases. Use FIB-4 first. A score below 1.3 (below 2.0 at age 65 or older) is low risk: the patient stays in primary care and repeats FIB-4 every 1-2 years. A score at or above the cutoff goes to a second-line test: VCTE, or ELF if elastography is not available. VCTE below 8 kPa is low risk. VCTE of 8 kPa or more, or ELF of 9.2 or more, means clinically significant fibrosis is likely and the patient should be referred to hepatology. Read liver stiffness with caution if the patient is actively drinking. Reserve biopsy for discordant or unclear results. Lifestyle change is the base of treatment for everyone: at least 5% weight loss improves steatosis, and 10% or more is usually needed for fibrosis to improve. Pharmacotherapy is recommended for adults with non-cirrhotic MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis (by non-invasive tests or biopsy), alongside structured lifestyle intervention and optimised management of comorbidities. The NIT ranges that stand in for F2-F3 differ by society. AASLD uses VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa or ELF 9.2-10.5. EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 frames the treatable high-risk group as, for example, VCTE 10-20 kPa, MRE 3.1-5.0 kPa or ELF 9.8-11.3. Two drugs are approved: resmetirom (80 mg oral daily, or 100 mg at body weight of 100 kg or more; AASLD Oct 2024 guidance) and semaglutide 2.4 mg subcutaneously once weekly (FDA accelerated approval Aug 2025, AASLD Nov 2025 guidance; in ESSENCE, MASH resolved without fibrosis worsening in 62.9% vs 34.3% on placebo). EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 says to choose between them by patient preference, risks and cardio-renal-metabolic profile. Semaglutide may be preferred with obesity, type 2 diabetes, established cardiovascular disease or high cardiovascular risk. Resmetirom may be prioritised without obesity, or when the patient is already on or cannot tolerate a GLP-1 receptor agonist. On semaglutide, monitoring includes nutrition and sarcopenia assessment, and fibrosis NITs are used over time to judge response. In MASH cirrhosis, resmetirom and semaglutide appear safe but should not be used as MASH-targeted treatment until liver-related benefit is shown. Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options under the AASLD 2023 guidance. Neither resmetirom nor semaglutide has been formally studied in MetALD. Manage cardiometabolic risk in every patient whatever the fibrosis stage, including statins for ASCVD and control of glucose and blood pressure. On semaglutide, watch for GI side effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, retinopathy, loss of lean mass). For MetALD, treat moderate or severe alcohol use disorder with medication plus behavioural therapy, correct micronutrient deficiencies (folate, thiamine, vitamin D), and do not offer bariatric or endobariatric procedures. HCC surveillance with ultrasound, with or without AFP, every 6 months is indicated only when cirrhosis is present.

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Mironova M … Loomba R · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology meta analysis · Jul 27, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Long-term follow-up, complications and outcomes of Meso-Rex bypass for extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO): a systematic review.

New evidenceportal hypertensionvariceal bleedingpediatricsystematic review
Clinical takeawayConsider Meso-Rex bypass for pediatric EHPVO patients with portal hypertension complications (GI bleeding, hypersplenism, thrombocytopenia) when standard medical therapy (NSBB, EVL) fails, given its high patency and low mortality but acknowledging thrombosis/stenosis risks and persistent portal hypertension.
What it foundMeso-Rex bypass achieved shunt patency in 87% (1229/1403) of pediatric EHPVO cases, with thrombosis in 9%, stenosis in 5%, recurrent GI bleeding in 13% (92/730), and 0.3% mortality (5 deaths, 1 MRB-related). Portal pressures decreased postoperatively but remained above 10 mmHg.
ContextConfirms MRB as a durable, effective surgical option for pediatric EHPVO, with consistent improvements in hematologic parameters and portal hypertension complications, though long-term follow-up protocols remain unstandardized.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, 'Vascular Liver Disorders, Portal Vein Thrombosis, and Procedural Bleeding in Patients with Liver Disease', 2021

Decision at stakechoosing a definitive treatment for pediatric extrahepatic portal vein obstruction (EHPVO)

… For concurrent portal vein thrombosis, anticoagulation decisions should be individualized based on thrombus acuity (recent vs. chronic), bleeding risk, and underlying etiology; liver transplantation is reserved for refractory complications, and HCC surveillance is not routine without cirrhosis.

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

Manage portal hypertension without cirrhosis by confirming portal hypertensive features while excluding cirrhosis (liver biopsy is the gold standard), then performing a comprehensive etiology workup (drug history, MPN/thrombophilia/PNH screen, autoimmune, CVID, HIV, schistosomiasis). Treat portal hypertension complications the same as cirrhosis, variceal prophylaxis with NSBB (carvedilol preferred) or EVL, TIPS for refractory or recurrent bleeding, and address the underlying cause by discontinuing offending drugs and treating the specific etiology. For concurrent portal vein thrombosis, anticoagulation decisions should be individualized based on thrombus acuity (recent vs. chronic), bleeding risk, and underlying etiology; liver transplantation is reserved for refractory complications, and HCC surveillance is not routine without cirrhosis.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases, 'Vascular Liver Disorders, Portal Vein Thrombosis, and Procedural Bleeding in Patients with Liver Disease', 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Riva P … Guérin F · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Esophagus/Reflux· 1

Esophagus/Reflux prospective cohort · Jul 27, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Step-Down Dose Reduction Dupilumab Maintenance is an Effective Long-Term Treatment Strategy in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

New evidenceeosinophilic esophagitis
Clinical takeawayConsider step-down dose reduction of dupilumab for long-term maintenance in eosinophilic esophagitis patients who achieve initial remission, provided they are stable and monitored for adverse events.
What it foundStep-down dose reduction of dupilumab maintained remission in 85% of eosinophilic esophagitis patients over 12 months compared to continuous high-dose therapy.
ContextThis study supports the feasibility of dose reduction in maintaining remission, challenging the need for continuous high-dose therapy in stable patients. The population studied was adults with confirmed EoE in remission.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Dellon et al., Am J Gastroenterol 120(1):31-59) / ASGE 2026 consensus Part 2 (Dellon et al., Gastrointest Endosc 103(3):396-417)

Decision at stakethe use of dupilumab for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy

… MAINTENANCE: continue effective therapy (ACG STRONG despite low evidence) at the lowest effective dose. …

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. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS, TREATMENT (ACG), DILATION and 2 more.

Our full summary of this standard

ACG 2025 (GRADE) is still the governing guideline. The ASGE 2026 consensus Part 2 (modified Delphi, 28 statements at ≥80% agreement; not GRADE) adds endoscopic and pediatric detail without contradicting it. DIAGNOSIS: symptoms of esophageal dysfunction plus ≥15 eos/hpf after excluding other causes of esophageal eosinophilia. A PPI trial is not a diagnostic criterion (PPI-REE abandoned). Do the initial diagnostic EGD off PPI, topical steroid and dietary therapy (ACG key concept; ASGE consensus, which gives no washout duration). Initial assessment is a standard EGD, not a less-invasive modality, so that full biopsies and dilation are possible (ASGE). Take ≥6 esophageal biopsies from ≥2 levels in anyone with symptoms or endoscopic findings consistent with EoE, targeting visible lesions. In CHILDREN with suspected EoE, also biopsy the stomach and duodenum (ASGE). Use EREFS at every endoscopy and report a quantified peak eosinophil count (ACG strong/low; ASGE). TREATMENT (ACG): swallowed topical steroids STRONG/moderate; high-dose PPI CONDITIONAL/low; empiric elimination diet CONDITIONAL/low. Choose a single initial therapy by shared decision-making. Fluticasone or budesonide are both reasonable. Adult doses: PPI double the reflux dose (e.g., omeprazole 20 mg BID or 40 mg daily); budesonide 2-4 mg/day (BOS 2 mg BID); fluticasone 1,760 mcg/day divided. Pediatric doses: PPI 2 mg/kg/day; budesonide 1-2 mg/day; fluticasone 110-880 mcg/day. Allergy testing is not used to direct diets. A 1FED/2FED step-up diet with a dietitian is acceptable, with endoscopic and biopsy confirmation after each reintroduced food. Dupilumab is CONDITIONAL for PPI-nonresponsive patients aged ≥12 (moderate) and for ages 1-11 at ≥15 kg (low). Weight-band dosing: 15-<30 kg 200 mg q2w; 30-<40 kg 300 mg q2w; ≥40 kg 300 mg weekly. Recommendations AGAINST: omalizumab, cromolyn, montelukast. No recommendation for cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab or reslizumab. DILATION: an adjunct to anti-inflammatory therapy for strictures causing dysphagia (ACG conditional/low). Start low and go slow; target ≥16 mm in adults and adolescents over ≥1 session. In children, ASGE supports dilation of symptomatic strictures or a narrow-caliber esophagus regardless of disease activity, using the same start-low/go-slow approach. MAINTENANCE: continue effective therapy (ACG STRONG despite low evidence) at the lowest effective dose. MONITORING: judge response on symptoms, endoscopy and histology together, never symptoms alone. Assess response endoscopically at 8-12 weeks after starting a PPI or topical steroid. For diet, ACG says 8-12 weeks and ASGE says 6-8 weeks. For dupilumab or biologics, assess at 12-24 weeks (ASGE: up to 24 weeks). Allow appropriate washout or timing after any treatment change before the follow-up EGD (ASGE). Take monitoring biopsies from the most severe-appearing lesions (rings, furrows, exudates) (ASGE). Monitoring biopsies may be limited to the esophagus when prior gastric and duodenal biopsies were normal and nothing new suggests other pathology (ASGE). The histologic response threshold of <15 eos/hpf is a 'may consider' target, read alongside endoscopic and symptom findings. Shorten follow-up after complications. Care gaps of ≥2 years are associated with fibrostenosis. PEDIATRIC (ACG): esophagram for children with dysphagia to assess fibrostenotic disease; feeding therapy and dietitian for feeding dysfunction; growth, development and nutrition are treatment goals.

ACG 2025 (Dellon et al., Am J Gastroenterol 120(1):31-59) / ASGE 2026 consensus Part 2 (Dellon et al., Gastrointest Endosc 103(3):396-417) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Alexander R … Ravi K · 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=2,244 · Jul 24, 2026 · Pancreatology · IF 3.0

The degree of obesity correlates with the severity of acute pancreatitis: An international multicenter cohort analysis of 2244 patients.

New evidenceacute pancreatitisepidemiology
Clinical takeawayRecognize that obesity severity correlates with AP complications; no specific clinical actions beyond standard monitoring are currently evidence-based.
What it foundObesity class I, II, and III increased odds of organ failure in acute pancreatitis (OR=2.12, 2.57, 2.71) and severe AP (OR=3.16, 3.98, 2.80) in a multinational cohort.
ContextQuantifies the graded association between BMI categories and AP severity using WHO obesity classifications.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at stakerisk stratification of acute pancreatitis severity using obesity as a factor

… ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. …

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

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Szentesi A … Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group · Pancreatology : Official Journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) .. [et Al.] · IF 3.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Endoscopy· 6

Endoscopy rct · n=200 · Jul 29, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Spiral basket geometry improves procedural efficiency and reduces device escalation in small bile duct stones: a multicenter randomized controlled trial (ESCAPE trial).

New evidencecholedocholithiasisERCPcost-effectivenesshealth services
Clinical takeawayConsider spiral-configured baskets for first-line ERCP extraction of small (≤8 mm) bile duct stones where available (currently primarily in Japan), given higher efficiency and lower cost without added risk.
What it foundSpiral-configured 8-wire basket achieved first-line procedural success without device escalation within 10 minutes in 97.9% vs 85.4% with standard basket (NNT=8), with fewer sweeps (2.71 vs 3.31) and shorter procedural time (3.96 vs 5.48 min). The spiral basket was not compared to balloon extraction and should not be interpreted as superior to it.
ContextChallenges the equipoise between standard baskets and balloons for small stones by demonstrating a geometry-specific advantage, though balloons were not directly compared.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), "ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis" (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89(6):1075-1105), 2019

Decision at stakethe choice of device for ERCP removal of small common bile duct stones

… HIGH-risk criteria, any of which should directly prompt ERCP: (1) CBD stone on ultrasound or cross-sectional imaging; (2) ascending cholangitis; (3) total bilirubin >4 mg/dL AND dilated CBD (>6 mm in adults with gallbladder in situ, >8 mm after cholecystectomy). … In gallstone pancreatitis WITHOUT cholangitis or biliary obstruction/choledocholithiasis, the panel recommends AGAINST urgent (<48 h) ERCP (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). …

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

Risk-stratify suspected choledocholithiasis (high >50%, intermediate 10-50%, low <10% probability). HIGH-risk criteria, any of which should directly prompt ERCP: (1) CBD stone on ultrasound or cross-sectional imaging; (2) ascending cholangitis; (3) total bilirubin >4 mg/dL AND dilated CBD (>6 mm in adults with gallbladder in situ, >8 mm after cholecystectomy). Gallstone pancreatitis was deliberately REMOVED as a high-risk criterion in the 2019 revision. INTERMEDIATE risk (abnormal liver biochemical tests, age >55 y, or bile-duct dilation on imaging): the panel suggests confirmation with either EUS or MRCP (conditional recommendation, low-quality evidence; choice by patient preference, local expertise, availability), laparoscopic intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) or intraoperative US are equally sanctioned alternatives. LOW risk: cholecystectomy with or without IOC/intraoperative US if indicated for symptomatic cholelithiasis; no ERCP and no mandatory advanced biliary imaging. In gallstone pancreatitis WITHOUT cholangitis or biliary obstruction/choledocholithiasis, the panel recommends AGAINST urgent (<48 h) ERCP (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). Same-admission cholecystectomy is recommended for patients with MILD gallstone pancreatitis (consensus, PONCHO-based); ERCP with prophylactic sphincterotomy should not be used as an alternative to cholecystectomy unless surgery is absolutely contraindicated (e.g., recurrent pancreatitis in end-stage liver disease). For large bile-duct stones, the panel suggests endoscopic sphincterotomy followed by large-balloon dilation (ES-LBD) rather than sphincterotomy alone (conditional, moderate); for large AND difficult stones, it suggests intraductal therapy (cholangioscopy-guided EHL or laser lithotripsy) or conventional therapy with papillary dilation, chosen by local expertise, cost, and patient/physician preference (conditional, very low). Timing versus cholecystectomy: pre- or postoperative ERCP or laparoscopic bile-duct clearance for patients at high risk or with positive IOC, depending on local surgical and endoscopic expertise (consensus).

American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE), "ASGE guideline on the role of endoscopy in the evaluation and management of choledocholithiasis" (Buxbaum JL et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2019;89(6):1075-1105), 2019 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Ogura T … Hakoda A · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=1,864 · Jul 24, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Endoscopic variceal ligation-induced ulcer bleeding: incidence by indication, real-world treatment, and outcomes.

New evidencevariceal bleedingcirrhosishemostasis
Clinical takeawayConsider early TIPS in high-risk patients (those with 5-day rebleeding or post-bleeding sepsis) and implement sepsis prevention strategies post-EVL, especially in semi-elective and emergency settings. Monitor for rebleeding and sepsis closely.
What it foundEVL-induced ulcer bleeding occurred in 3.3% of cases overall, with incidence varying by indication: 0.44% after elective, 8.5% after emergency, and 15.9% after semi-elective EVL. The overall primary hemostasis rate was 82.8%, with repeat ligation (32.4%), fibrin glue (14.7%), and balloon tamponade (11.7%) as common treatments. The 5-day rebleeding rate was 25%, and the 6-week mortality rate was 41.7%, with 5-day rebleeding (OR: 8.05) and post-bleeding sepsis (OR: 7.27) strongly associated with mortality.
ContextThis study provides the first detailed incidence and outcome data for EVL-induced ulcer bleeding across different procedural indications, highlighting the particularly high risk in semi-elective EVL, which was previously not separately examined.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· AASLD, 'Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis', Hepatology 2024 (PMID 37870298), the governing document for acute variceal hemorrhage. Baveno VII (J Hepatol 2022, PMID 35120736) is the consensus it operationalises. The prior citation, ACG 'Disorders of the Hepatic and Mesenteric Circulation' (2020), covers Budd-Chiari, portal vein thrombosis and mesenteric ischemia and does NOT address variceal bleeding, a mis-anchor, not a stale edition.

Decision at stakethe use of early TIPS in high-risk patients with variceal bleeding

… Evaluate every patient at presentation for pre-emptive (early) TIPS with a PTFE-covered stent, placed within 72 hours and ideally within 24 hours, in high-risk patients defined as Child-Pugh class C with score under 14 (that is, 10-13) or Child-Pugh class B with score above 7 who have active bleeding at initial endoscopy despite vasoactive drugs; the decision is individualized and multidisciplinary, weighing age, frailty, comorbidity, heart failure, HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and transplant candidacy. …

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

For acute variceal hemorrhage in cirrhosis, resuscitate conservatively with a restrictive RBC transfusion strategy targeting hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL, start a vasoactive agent as soon as bleeding is suspected and before endoscopy (terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide; octreotide is the agent available for this indication in US practice) and continue it 2-5 days, and give empiric IV ceftriaxone 1 g every 24 hours in patients with advanced cirrhosis. Perform upper endoscopy within 12 hours of presentation once resuscitated, or as soon as safely possible if the patient is unstable, with band ligation for esophageal varices and for GOV1 (which is treated as an esophageal varix); cardiofundal varices (GOV2 and IGV1) are treated with cyanoacrylate injection, with EUS-guided coil placement with or without cyanoacrylate increasingly used as first-line where expertise exists, and TIPS or BRTO as alternatives or salvage. PPIs started empirically should be stopped immediately after endoscopy unless there is a separate strict indication. Evaluate every patient at presentation for pre-emptive (early) TIPS with a PTFE-covered stent, placed within 72 hours and ideally within 24 hours, in high-risk patients defined as Child-Pugh class C with score under 14 (that is, 10-13) or Child-Pugh class B with score above 7 who have active bleeding at initial endoscopy despite vasoactive drugs; the decision is individualized and multidisciplinary, weighing age, frailty, comorbidity, heart failure, HCC, portal vein thrombosis, and transplant candidacy. For uncontrolled bleeding, a self-expanding covered esophageal metal stent is as effective as balloon tamponade and is the safer option; both are a bridge to definitive therapy (PTFE-covered TIPS) and neither is definitive therapy. Balloon tamponade must NOT be left in place for more than 24 hours, 24 hours is the ceiling, not a range: Baveno VI states it "should only be used in refractory oesophageal bleeding, as a temporary bridge (for a maximum of 24 h) with intensive care monitoring and considering intubation, until definitive treatment can be instituted", because severe esophageal injury/necrosis, perforation and aspiration rise sharply beyond that point. The 72-hour figure in this standard belongs to the pre-emptive TIPS window and must not be read as a permissible tamponade duration. Secondary prophylaxis is mandatory in all survivors and is combination therapy: a nonselective beta-blocker, either a traditional NSBB (propranolol or nadolol) or carvedilol, which Baveno VII endorses as an equivalent rather than clearly superior option in this specific indication, plus serial EVL every 2 to 8 weeks until variceal eradication, with surveillance endoscopy thereafter. TIPS is the treatment of choice for patients who rebleed despite NSBB plus EVL.

AASLD, 'Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis', Hepatology 2024 (PMID 37870298), the governing document for acute variceal hemorrhage. Baveno VII (J Hepatol 2022, PMID 35120736) is the consensus it operationalises. The prior citation, ACG 'Disorders of the Hepatic and Mesenteric Circulation' (2020), covers Budd-Chiari, portal vein thrombosis and mesenteric ischemia and does NOT address variceal bleeding, a mis-anchor, not a stale edition. · reviewed 2026-07-31 ↗
Vasilakis T … Engelmann C · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=269 · Jul 26, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Immediate vs Step-up Endoscopic Transluminal Necrosectomy in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

New evidenceacute pancreatitissystematic reviewmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider immediate DEN in patients with WON who are stable and may benefit from earlier source control, balancing against potential overtreatment. Individualize timing based on clinical context.
What it foundImmediate DEN had higher clinical success (OR 2.56, 95% CI 1.03-6.37) and shorter hospital stay (MD -8.02 days, 95% CI -15.00 to -1.05) vs step-up strategy, with no significant difference in adverse events, bleeding, organ failure, or mortality.
ContextChallenges the step-up approach as standard, showing immediate DEN may offer advantages in certain stable patients with WON.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437

Decision at staketiming of endoscopic transluminal necrosectomy in necrotizing pancreatitis

… For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

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

Diagnose acute pancreatitis (AP) by the Atlanta criteria (2 of 3: characteristic epigastric/LUQ pain, lipase or amylase >3x ULN [lipase preferred for specificity/duration], or characteristic imaging). ACG 2024 stratifies severity risk using SIRS on admission plus bedside risk factors, rising/elevated BUN, rising/elevated hematocrit (>44), obesity (BMI>30), extrapancreatic fluid collections/pleural effusion/infiltrates, altered mental status, and older age/comorbidities, rather than mandating a formal BISAP or APACHE II composite score. Give moderately aggressive lactated Ringer's, most important in the first 6-12 hours, reassessing volume status/BUN/HCT at 6 hours (further aggressive hydration has little added benefit after 24-48h). Start oral low-fat solid food within 24-48h as tolerated in mild disease; if enteral feeding is needed for moderately severe/severe disease, prefer nasogastric over nasojejunal with small-peptide/medium-chain-triglyceride formula and continuous (not bolus/cyclic) feeding; avoid parenteral nutrition if possible. Do not give prophylactic antibiotics, even in severe disease or sterile necrosis; reserve antibiotics for suspected infected necrosis (typically arising 10-14 days in), and choose agents that penetrate pancreatic necrosis while together covering both gut-derived gram-negative enterics and anaerobes, a carbapenem supplies this as monotherapy, whereas a fluoroquinolone or a third-or-higher-generation cephalosporin must be combined with metronidazole; metronidazole alone (anaerobic cover only), or a cephalosporin or a quinolone alone, does not adequately treat infected necrosis. Perform cholecystectomy preferably before discharge for mild acute biliary pancreatitis, and after a second unexplained AP episode even without identified gallstones; reserve ERCP within 24h for AP complicated by cholangitis, with rectal indomethacin +/- pancreatic duct stent and periprocedural hydration to reduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk. Check triglycerides when gallstones/alcohol are absent (>1000 mg/dL supports a hypertriglyceridemia etiology). For stable pancreatic necrosis, defer surgical, radiological, or endoscopic intervention 4-6 weeks to allow walling-off (step-up approach).

American College of Gastroenterology, "American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines: Management of Acute Pancreatitis" (Tenner S, Vege SS, Sheth SG, et al.), Am J Gastroenterol 2024;119(3):419-437 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Dimitrov D … Ramai D · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=38,010 · Jul 24, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Association between colonoscopy and colorectal cancer risk in adults aged 75 to 85 years: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

New evidencecolorectal cancer screeningepidemiologyhealth servicescolonoscopy
Clinical takeawayFor adults aged 75-79, discuss colonoscopy as an option for CRC screening during shared decision-making, weighing life expectancy and comorbidities. For those aged 80-85, particularly women, emphasize individualized decisions due to uncertain benefit and potential risks. Counsel on alcohol reduction as a modifiable CRC risk factor.
What it foundColonoscopy reduced CRC incidence to 2.8% vs 3.7% in adults aged 75-79 (aHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), but showed no significant benefit in those aged 80-85 (aHR 0.77, 95% CI 0.57-1.03), with a potential harm signal in women ≥80 (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 0.81-2.15). Alcohol consumption was the only modifiable factor consistently associated with increased CRC risk.
ContextSupports age-stratified screening decisions over a blanket cutoff (e.g., stopping at 75), aligning with current guidelines that recommend individualized screening for ages 76-85. Highlights the need for caution in women ≥80 due to a potential harm signal.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update 2026 (Calderwood et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol) / USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018

Decision at stakewhether to continue colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 75 to 85

… For ages 76-85 the decision is individualized (USPSTF Grade C). Under USMSTF, people who are up to date with negative prior screening, especially a high-quality colonoscopy, should consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy falls below 10 years. …

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

The thresholds on file still hold, and the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (Calderwood, Yoshida, Das, Falk; Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, online 2026-08-03) agrees with them while adding to them. Average-risk adults are screened routinely from age 45 to 75 (USPSTF 2021: Grade B for 45-49, Grade A for 50-75; USMSTF and ACS agree). For ages 76-85 the decision is individualized (USPSTF Grade C). Under USMSTF, people who are up to date with negative prior screening, especially a high-quality colonoscopy, should consider stopping at 75 or when life expectancy falls below 10 years. People who were never adequately screened may be screened up to 85, depending on age and comorbidity. Screening is not recommended at 86 or older. The 2026 AGA update adds four things. (1) After age 75, the decision to continue screening (BPA 6) or polyp surveillance (BPA 7) should be individualized by weighing benefit, screening or polyp history, comorbidities and risks; this now explicitly covers post-polypectomy surveillance, not only screening. (2) Formal comorbidity assessment and life-expectancy tools may help separate older adults likely to benefit from those likely to be harmed (BPA 1). (3) Colonoscopy adverse events rise with age whatever the indication, so the reasoning behind any colonoscopy decision in someone over 75 should be documented in the EHR (BPA 8). (4) For Barrett's esophagus, continuing surveillance is a shared decision, and a patient who could not tolerate endoscopic, surgical or oncologic treatment should stop surveillance at any age (BPA 3 and 5). The AGA statements are expert-opinion Best Practice Advice without formal evidence grades, and they set no new numeric age or life-expectancy cutoffs. New alarm features (iron-deficiency anemia, GI bleeding, change in bowel habit, weight loss) still warrant diagnostic workup at any age; this is general practice, not a guideline statement.

AGA Clinical Practice Update 2026 (Calderwood et al., Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol) / USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018 · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Kim SY … Kim HS · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · Jul 25, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Robust Performance Metrics of the Capsule-Sponge-Trefoil-Factor-3 Test for Detecting Barrett's Esophagus: A Pooled Analysis.

New evidenceBarrett's esophagusbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider the capsule-sponge-trefoil-factor-3 test as a non-endoscopic screening option for Barrett's esophagus in eligible patients, particularly those unwilling or unable to undergo endoscopy, while noting potential limitations and adverse events.
What it foundThe capsule-sponge-trefoil-factor-3 test detected Barrett's esophagus with 85% sensitivity and 92% specificity in a pooled analysis, compared to standard endoscopy.
ContextThis pooled analysis confirms the test's performance metrics, offering a less invasive alternative to endoscopy for Barrett's esophagus detection, which aligns with current efforts to improve screening accessibility. However, the test's applicability and safety profile in diverse populations require further investigation.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA 2025 (surveillance) / ACG 2022 (diagnosis, endoscopic therapy, post-EET)

Decision at stakediagnosis of Barrett's esophagus without endoscopy

… Its 8 GRADE recommendations are: (1) endoscopic surveillance for nondysplastic BE rather than none (conditional, low certainty); (2) NO endoscopic surveillance for columnar-lined esophagus <1 cm, even with intestinal metaplasia, when there is no neoplasia (conditional); (3) high-definition white-light endoscopy PLUS chromoendoscopy over white light alone (STRONG); (4) no recommendation for or against wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as an adjunct to structured biopsy; (5) no recommendation on p53 IHC and (6) no recommendation on TissueCypher as adjuncts to histopathology in NDBE, indefinite for dysplasia (IND), or LGD; (7) daily PPI over no PPI to prevent neoplastic progression (conditional); (8) PPI over antireflux surgery to prevent progression to HGD/EAC (conditional). …

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

Surveillance practice is now defined by the AGA 2025 surveillance guideline (Wani et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169:1184-1231; endorsed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology). Its 8 GRADE recommendations are: (1) endoscopic surveillance for nondysplastic BE rather than none (conditional, low certainty); (2) NO endoscopic surveillance for columnar-lined esophagus <1 cm, even with intestinal metaplasia, when there is no neoplasia (conditional); (3) high-definition white-light endoscopy PLUS chromoendoscopy over white light alone (STRONG); (4) no recommendation for or against wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as an adjunct to structured biopsy; (5) no recommendation on p53 IHC and (6) no recommendation on TissueCypher as adjuncts to histopathology in NDBE, indefinite for dysplasia (IND), or LGD; (7) daily PPI over no PPI to prevent neoplastic progression (conditional); (8) PPI over antireflux surgery to prevent progression to HGD/EAC (conditional). Implementation statements require a high-quality exam, a structured (Seattle-type) biopsy protocol, confirmation of any BE-related dysplasia by an expert GI pathologist, intervals tailored to segment length and dysplasia grade, and shared decision-making. Surveillance should stop when a patient could not tolerate endoscopic therapy, surgery, or oncologic treatment for EAC, at any age. The AGA 2025 interval table could not be read directly (full text paywalled). Until it is, the intervals below are the ACG 2022 intervals, which remain consistent with AGA's segment-length framing: NDBE <3 cm every 5 years; NDBE >=3 cm every 3 years; IND, after a second-pathologist read, optimize to twice-daily PPI, repeat EGD within 6 months, then annually if IND persists; confirmed LGD on surveillance, EGD at 6 and 12 months, then annually. Diagnosis (IM plus >=1 cm columnar mucosa, no biopsy of a normal or <1 cm irregular Z line, >=8 biopsies), endoscopic eradication therapy (EET over esophagectomy for HGD/T1a (strong); EET suggested for confirmed LGD with surveillance an acceptable alternative; resect visible lesions before RFA; sm1 low-risk T1b may be considered for EET) and post-EET intervals (baseline LGD: 1 year, 3 years, then every 2 years; baseline HGD/T1a: 3, 6, 12 months, then annually) are still governed by ACG 2022. The AGA surveillance guideline does not address them, and AGA has said a separate screening guideline will follow in 2026.

AGA 2025 (surveillance) / ACG 2022 (diagnosis, endoscopic therapy, post-EET) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Somerset T … Fitzgerald RC · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=5,306 · Jul 27, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Neoplastic recurrence after colorectal endoscopic submucosal dissection at scheduled endoscopic surveillance: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysisESDdysplasiacolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayConsider extending surveillance intervals up to 5 years for low-risk patients (R0 resection, favorable histology), as recurrence is rare and mostly due to metachronous lesions.
What it foundNeoplastic recurrence after colorectal ESD was 1.2% at 1 year, 1.4% at 3 years, and 1.9% at 5 years, with malignant recurrence rare (0.2%) and confined to noncurative resections or deep submucosal invasion.
ContextConfirms low recurrence risk after ESD, refining post-ESD surveillance strategies by identifying low-risk patients who may benefit from less frequent monitoring.
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.

Ramai D … Jacques J · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Motility· 1

Motility rct · n=230 · Jul 25, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

In-person therapist-delivered hypnotherapy versus smartphone-based self-guided hypnotherapy in IBS: a multicentre three-armed randomised controlled trial.

New evidenceIBShealth services
Clinical takeawayConsider smartphone-based self-guided hypnotherapy as a cost-effective alternative for Rome IV IBS patients (16-75 years) when in-person hypnotherapy is unavailable, but counsel that it may be less effective than in-person therapy (33% vs 48% response) and that non-inferiority was not proven.
What it foundSmartphone-based self-guided hypnotherapy had a 33% FDA abdominal pain response rate (≥30% reduction) vs 48% for in-person therapist-delivered hypnotherapy (non-inferiority margin 10% not met: -14.7%, 95% CI -29.3% to 0.9%) and 22% for psychoeducation.
ContextMulticenter RCT in Rome IV IBS patients (16-75 years) confirming in-person hypnotherapy's superiority (48% vs 22% psychoeducation) but showing smartphone-based therapy's meaningful response (33%) despite not meeting non-inferiority.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), "Acute Abdominal Pain in Adults: Evaluation and Diagnosis" (Yew KS, George MK, Allred HB; Am Fam Physician 107(6):585-596), 2023

Decision at stakethe use of hypnotherapy for managing abdominal pain in IBS

Begin evaluation of abdominal pain with a rapid risk assessment: identify hemodynamic instability, signs of peritonitis, or pain out of proportion to examination findings, these patients need urgent resuscitation or surgical evaluation. …

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

Begin evaluation of abdominal pain with a rapid risk assessment: identify hemodynamic instability, signs of peritonitis, or pain out of proportion to examination findings, these patients need urgent resuscitation or surgical evaluation. Pursue specific life-threatening causes (ruptured AAA, aortic dissection, mesenteric ischemia, ectopic pregnancy, myocardial ischemia) when presentation and risk factors raise suspicion for them, rather than as a universal rule-out before assigning a GI cause. In stable patients, apply a localization-driven differential (RUQ/epigastric/LUQ/RLQ/LLQ/diffuse/periumbilical/suprapubic) with stepwise workup: history and exam with red flags (fever, protracted vomiting, syncope/presyncope, GI blood loss), labs (CBC, CRP, hepatobiliary markers, electrolytes/creatinine/glucose, urinalysis, lipase; pregnancy test in all premenopausal women, including those using reliable contraception; lactate when sepsis or mesenteric ischemia is suspected, may be normal early; ECG/troponin when a cardiac cause is suspected), imaging by location (ultrasound first for RUQ pain; CT with IV contrast for RLQ, LLQ, and generalized pain; CTA when mesenteric ischemia is suspected; in pregnancy, ultrasound first with MRI when ultrasound is inconclusive), then endoscopy and specialty referral by suspicion.

American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), "Acute Abdominal Pain in Adults: Evaluation and Diagnosis" (Yew KS, George MK, Allred HB; Am Fam Physician 107(6):585-596), 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Snijkers JTW … Keszthelyi D · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week38 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.

Endoscopy· 13

Also screened this week30 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 →

Endoscopy· 19

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.