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. These are the 20 cards in the issue; every one quotes the standard it was measured against, with its source and review date. Click a segment to filter the issue.
The signal map
Each dot is a paper: evidence strength across, how far it moves the standard up, area = the journal's impact factor, colour = subspecialty. The shaded zone is a fixed bar (prospective cohort or better, refining the standard or better), so a big dot outside it is work the field rated highly that is not changing practice. Click a dot to open its card.
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.
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
Rank by
Actionability = is there something to do. Prevalence = how much of a general GI practice it touches. Stakes = how consequential the decision is. Evidence strength = how far the study design and the result support the action. Novelty = how likely you are not already doing it.
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.
Decision at stakeensuring timely follow-up colonoscopy after positive stool tests
For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant).…The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 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 standardShowHide
For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant). For ages 76-85, the decision to start or continue is individualized, based on shared decision-making that weighs prior screening history, comorbidity, life expectancy, CRC risk, and patient preference (USPSTF Grade C). Screening is not recommended/offered at age 86 or older. The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 years. Individuals without adequate prior screening may be considered for screening up to age 85 depending on age and comorbidities. New alarm symptoms (iron deficiency anemia, GI bleeding, change in bowel habits, weight loss) always warrant workup regardless of age or screening status; this remains sound general practice though it is not a specific guideline citation.
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.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Rex DK, Boland CR, Dominitz JA, et al.), "Colorectal Cancer Screening: Recommendations for Physicians and Patients From the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2017ShowHide
Decision at stakethe potential use of gut microbiome biomarkers for non-invasive colorectal cancer screening
Begin average-risk colorectal cancer screening at age 45 using a patient-centered shared-decision modality choice, colonoscopy every 10 years (preferred) or annual FIT as Tier 1 options, with multi-target stool DNA every 3 years, CT colonography every 5 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 5 to 10 years as Tier 2 alternatives. A positive stool-based test requires diagnostic colonoscopy, and stool tests should not be ordered for patients who would decline follow-up colonoscopy. Generally stop at age 75 with individualized decisions for ages 76-85 and no screening beyond 85.
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.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance, updated by AASLD Practice Guidance October 2024 (resmetirom) and November 2025 (semaglutide)ShowHide
Decision at stakethe choice of non-invasive tests for fibrosis staging in MASLD
Diagnose MASLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging (or biopsy) plus at least one cardiometabolic criterion and exclusion of competing etiologies (significant alcohol use, other liver disease), then risk-stratify fibrosis using a sequential non-invasive approach: FIB-4 first, followed by a second-line imaging-based test (VCTE, MRE, or ELF) for indeterminate/high-risk FIB-4, with liver biopsy reserved for discordant or unclear cases.…
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 standardShowHide
Diagnose MASLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging (or biopsy) plus at least one cardiometabolic criterion and exclusion of competing etiologies (significant alcohol use, other liver disease), then risk-stratify fibrosis using a sequential non-invasive approach: FIB-4 first, followed by a second-line imaging-based test (VCTE, MRE, or ELF) for indeterminate/high-risk FIB-4, with liver biopsy reserved for discordant or unclear cases. Lifestyle modification (≥7-10% weight loss, Mediterranean diet, exercise) remains the foundation for all patients. For adults with MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis identified by non-invasive tests (VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa, or ELF 9.2-10.5) rather than biopsy, AASLD now gives dedicated, updated practice guidance on both FDA-approved pharmacotherapies: resmetirom (Oct 2024 update) and semaglutide 2.4mg/week subcutaneous (Nov 2025 update, following August 2025 accelerated FDA approval based on ESSENCE trial data: 62.9% vs 34.3% MASH resolution without fibrosis worsening; 36.8% vs 22.4% ≥1-stage fibrosis improvement). Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options per the 2023 base guidance. Manage cardiometabolic risk with statins for ASCVD reduction plus glycemic and blood-pressure control; for semaglutide specifically, routine hepatic panels are recommended only as clinically indicated (no discontinuations for LFT elevation in ESSENCE), with monitoring for GI adverse effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, thyroid C-cell tumors, retinopathy progression, lean mass loss). HCC surveillance with ultrasound and AFP every 6 months remains indicated only if cirrhosis is present.
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.ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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.
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
Endoscopyretrospective · n=174 · Jul 24, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0
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
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):27-56ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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).
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.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes)ShowHide
Decision at staketreat mild-moderate ulcerative colitis with 5-ASA
Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); if 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually.…
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 standardShowHide
Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); if 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by EFFICACY TIER, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab; intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab; lower: adalimumab. PREVIOUSLY TNF-EXPOSED, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab; lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism. Apply treat-to-target (STRIDE-II) to endoscopic improvement (MES 0-1). Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after DIAGNOSIS for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening.
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.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Crohn’s Disease in Adults' (Lichtenstein GR, Loftus EV, Afzali A, et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1225-1264). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000003465, PMID 40701562.ShowHide
Decision at stakethe safety of primary anastomosis in the presence of an intraoperative abscess in Crohn disease
…SURGERY/ABSCESS: intra-abdominal abscess >2 cm should be treated with antibiotics plus a drainage procedure, and immunosuppression HELD until drainage is achieved (conditional, 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. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS, PERIANAL FISTULIZING, POST-OPERATIVE and 3 more.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
DIAGNOSIS: Use fecal calprotectin (cutoff >50-100 μg/g) to differentiate inflammatory from noninflammatory disease OF THE COLON (strong, moderate). Ileocolonoscopy with biopsies for suspected CD; biopsy uninvolved mucosa to define histologic extent; small bowel imaging is part of the initial workup (key concepts, ungraded). CT enterography is comparable to MR enterography for small bowel detection; MRE should be used PREFERENTIALLY in patients younger than 35 years and where serial examinations are likely, because of radiation avoidance, MRE is not a blanket first choice. Intestinal ultrasound is a radiation-free ADJUNCT to diagnosis and to monitoring treatment response (key concept, ungraded, not a graded recommendation). Perform routine endoscopic CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis (strong, moderate). MILD-TO-MODERATE / LOWER PROGRESSION RISK: Recommend AGAINST oral mesalamine for induction or maintenance (strong, moderate); sulfasalazine should be considered ONLY for symptomatic mild COLONIC CD (key concept). Controlled ileal-release budesonide 9 mg daily for induction of symptomatic remission in mildly-to-moderately active ileocecal CD (strong, moderate), but recommend AGAINST ileal-release budesonide for MAINTENANCE (strong, low). MODERATE-TO-SEVERE / HIGHER RISK: SUGGEST AGAINST requiring failure of conventional therapy before initiating advanced therapy (conditional, LOW, a permission to skip step-up, not a mandate to start advanced therapy upfront). Oral corticosteroids for short-term induction only (strong, low). Recommend AGAINST azathioprine 1.5-2.5 mg/kg/d and 6-mercaptopurine 0.75-1.5 mg/kg/d for INDUCTION (strong, moderate), but SUGGEST the same agents and doses for MAINTENANCE after corticosteroid-induced remission (conditional, low). Check TPMT before starting azathioprine/6-MP (strong, low); measure NUDT15 variants in patients of East Asian ancestry and TPMT variants in all patients prior to thiopurine initiation (strong, moderate). Methotrexate up to 25 mg weekly IM/SC for maintenance after corticosteroid induction (conditional, low). Anti-TNF agents (IV infliximab, SC adalimumab, SC certolizumab pegol) for induction and maintenance (strong, moderate). Recommend COMBINATION IV infliximab + thiopurine over either agent alone in patients naive to both (strong, moderate). Vedolizumab IV for induction and maintenance of symptomatic remission (strong, moderate). Ustekinumab (strong, moderate); risankizumab (strong, moderate), and risankizumab over ustekinumab in prior anti-TNF exposure (conditional, low); mirikizumab (strong, moderate); guselkumab IV-then-SC or all-SC (strong, moderate). Upadacitinib for induction and maintenance in patients PREVIOUSLY EXPOSED TO ANTI-TNF (strong, moderate), the ACG does not endorse it as a first-line biologic-naive option. SC infliximab and SC vedolizumab are maintenance options in responders to IV induction (strong, moderate). PERIANAL FISTULIZING: infliximab for induction (strong, moderate); adalimumab (conditional, low); antibiotics added to infliximab or adalimumab (conditional, very low); vedolizumab, ustekinumab, upadacitinib each (conditional, VERY LOW). Drain perianal abscesses and place setons before escalating advanced therapy (key concept). POST-OPERATIVE: endoscopic assessment at 6-12 months after surgically induced remission over no monitoring (conditional, moderate); in LOW post-op recurrence risk, continued observation rather than immediate medical therapy (conditional, very low); imidazole antibiotics (metronidazole) 1-2 g/d after small intestinal resection (conditional, low); in HIGH-risk CD, anti-TNF to prevent endoscopic recurrence (STRONG, moderate) and vedolizumab (CONDITIONAL, low), these two are not co-equal. SURGERY/ABSCESS: intra-abdominal abscess >2 cm should be treated with antibiotics plus a drainage procedure, and immunosuppression HELD until drainage is achieved (conditional, low). DISEASE MODIFIERS: counsel active smokers to quit; use NSAIDs with caution; assess stress, depression and anxiety as part of comprehensive care (key concepts).
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.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· ACG Clinical Guideline Update: Ulcerative Colitis in Adults, Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(6):1187-1224; AGA Living Guideline on Pharmacological Management of Moderate-to-Severe UC, Gastroenterology 2024 (panel review March 2026, no changes)ShowHide
Decision at stakepositioning tofacitinib in advanced therapy for ulcerative colitis
Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing.…
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 standardShowHide
Confirm ulcerative colitis with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step CDI testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA by route and extent (suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided, oral plus rectal for extensive); if 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by EFFICACY TIER, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab; intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab; lower: adalimumab. PREVIOUSLY TNF-EXPOSED, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab; lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod - S1P modulators are weakest in exactly this group. Do not cycle within the anti-TNF class after primary non-response; switch mechanism. Apply treat-to-target (STRIDE-II) to endoscopic improvement (MES 0-1). Screen for acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts and admit for IV steroids. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after DIAGNOSIS for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening.
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.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance, updated by AASLD Practice Guidance October 2024 (resmetirom) and November 2025 (semaglutide)ShowHide
Decision at stakeusing resmetirom for adults with MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis identified by non-invasive tests or biopsy
…For adults with MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis identified by non-invasive tests (VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa, or ELF 9.2-10.5) rather than biopsy, AASLD now gives dedicated, updated practice guidance on both FDA-approved pharmacotherapies: resmetirom (Oct 2024 update) and semaglutide 2.4mg/week subcutaneous (Nov 2025 update, following August 2025 accelerated FDA approval based on ESSENCE trial data: 62.9% vs 34.3% MASH resolution without fibrosis worsening; 36.8% vs 22.4% ≥1-stage fibrosis improvement).…
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 standardShowHide
Diagnose MASLD by hepatic steatosis on imaging (or biopsy) plus at least one cardiometabolic criterion and exclusion of competing etiologies (significant alcohol use, other liver disease), then risk-stratify fibrosis using a sequential non-invasive approach: FIB-4 first, followed by a second-line imaging-based test (VCTE, MRE, or ELF) for indeterminate/high-risk FIB-4, with liver biopsy reserved for discordant or unclear cases. Lifestyle modification (≥7-10% weight loss, Mediterranean diet, exercise) remains the foundation for all patients. For adults with MASH and F2-F3 fibrosis identified by non-invasive tests (VCTE 8-15 kPa, MRE 3.1-4.4 kPa, or ELF 9.2-10.5) rather than biopsy, AASLD now gives dedicated, updated practice guidance on both FDA-approved pharmacotherapies: resmetirom (Oct 2024 update) and semaglutide 2.4mg/week subcutaneous (Nov 2025 update, following August 2025 accelerated FDA approval based on ESSENCE trial data: 62.9% vs 34.3% MASH resolution without fibrosis worsening; 36.8% vs 22.4% ≥1-stage fibrosis improvement). Pioglitazone or vitamin E remain options per the 2023 base guidance. Manage cardiometabolic risk with statins for ASCVD reduction plus glycemic and blood-pressure control; for semaglutide specifically, routine hepatic panels are recommended only as clinically indicated (no discontinuations for LFT elevation in ESSENCE), with monitoring for GI adverse effects and rare risks (AKI, gallbladder disease, pancreatitis, thyroid C-cell tumors, retinopathy progression, lean mass loss). HCC surveillance with ultrasound and AFP every 6 months remains indicated only if cirrhosis is present.
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', 2021ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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.
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/Refluxprospective cohort · Jul 27, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2
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.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (Dellon ES, Muir AB, Katzka DA, et al.), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis," American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025 (120(1):31-59)ShowHide
Decision at stakethe use of dupilumab for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy
…BIOLOGICS: dupilumab is suggested for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, moderate) and, as a separate statement, for pediatric patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, 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. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS, DILATION, MAINTENANCE and 2 more.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
ACG 2025 makes 19 GRADE-rated statements plus non-graded key concepts. DIAGNOSIS: EoE is diagnosed by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction plus at least 15 eos/hpf in at least 1 hpf on esophageal biopsy, after evaluating for non-EoE disorders that cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). A PPI trial is NOT a diagnostic criterion and the term PPI-REE is abandoned; PPIs are positioned purely as a treatment. Obtain at least 6 esophageal biopsies from at least 2 esophageal levels (e.g., proximal/mid and distal), targeting endoscopic findings if possible (strong, low). Use a systematic endoscopic scoring system such as the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) at every endoscopy (strong, low). Quantify eosinophil counts, not merely report them as above threshold, on biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE (strong, low), since serial counts gauge anti-inflammatory effect; the guideline notes eosinophil density (~60 eos/mm2) may be preferable for cross-setting comparison but that this has not yet been adopted in practice. Key concept: perform the diagnostic endoscopy off treatment (no dietary restriction and no PPI) to maximize diagnostic sensitivity. TREATMENT, the three anti-inflammatory options do NOT carry equal recommendation strength: swallowed topical steroids are recommended (STRONG, moderate evidence); PPIs are suggested (CONDITIONAL, low); empiric food elimination diet is suggested (CONDITIONAL, low). Because the field lacks comparative efficacy trials, the guideline states the choice among them is individualized to disease characteristics and patient preference within a shared decision-making framework, and advises that a single anti-inflammatory therapy be selected initially. Either fluticasone propionate or budesonide is a reasonable initial topical steroid (conditional, low); options include the FDA-approved budesonide oral suspension, the EMA-approved budesonide orodispersible tablet, and off-label asthma preparations adapted for esophageal delivery. Administer topical steroids after meals or at bedtime with nothing to eat or drink for 30-60 minutes to maximize esophageal dwell time; in young children prefer a slurry/suspension over an inhaler device. Dosing (Table 6): high-dose PPI, adults, double the approved reflux dose per day (e.g., omeprazole 20 mg twice daily or 40 mg daily or PPI equivalent); children, 2 mg/kg/day (or 1 mg/kg twice daily). Budesonide, adults 2-4 mg/day, divisible twice daily (approved budesonide oral suspension dosing is 2 mg twice daily); children 1-2 mg/day by age/height/weight. Fluticasone, adults 1,760 mcg/day in divided doses; children 110-880 mcg/day in divided doses. Currently available allergy testing (skin prick, patch, or serum Ig panels) is NOT suggested to direct elimination diets (conditional, very low). Providers MAY consider starting with a less-restrictive empiric elimination (1FED or 2FED) as the initial diet choice, incorporating patient preference through shared decision-making, and should collaborate with a dietician or nutritionist; after an initial dietary response a structured food reintroduction process is advised, with endoscopy and biopsy after each food reintroduced, because symptoms alone must not be used to determine food triggers. BIOLOGICS: dupilumab is suggested for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, moderate) and, as a separate statement, for pediatric patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, low). Dosing: 15 to <30 kg, 200 mg subcutaneously every other week; 30 to <40 kg, 300 mg subcutaneously every other week; >=40 kg, 300 mg subcutaneously weekly. Key concept: use dupilumab as step-up therapy in difficult-to-treat patients, and consider it in patients with multiple atopic conditions that would independently meet requirements for its use; the guideline explicitly states its position in the treatment algorithm is still being determined. No recommendation can be made for or against cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. Omalizumab is suggested AGAINST (conditional, low), as are cromolyn and montelukast (conditional, very low). DILATION: endoscopic dilation is suggested as an ADJUNCT to medical therapy for esophageal strictures causing dysphagia (conditional, low). Dilation alone does not affect underlying inflammatory disease activity, so in fibrostenotic EoE it should occur in conjunction with effective medical or dietary anti-inflammatory therapy. Use a start-low-and-go-slow approach: begin with a dilator size that may underestimate esophageal caliber, relook after dilation, and work to larger sizes until a mucosal disruption ('dilation effect') or the target diameter is reached. In adults and adolescents, a goal luminal diameter that relieves dysphagia and food impaction, typically at least 16 mm, should be achieved over one or more sessions, depending on initial luminal caliber and the effect observed during dilation. Dilation technique may be chosen by stricture characteristics and endoscopist preference. MAINTENANCE: continuation of EFFECTIVE dietary or pharmacologic therapy is advised to prevent recurrence of symptoms, histologic inflammation, and endoscopic abnormalities, notably graded STRONG despite low-quality evidence, because disease activity almost universally recurs when treatment is stopped. For patients on pharmacologic treatment, providers should consider identifying the lowest effective dose for long-term use, with any dose-reduction decision individualized. MONITORING AND RESPONSE: evaluate treatment response with symptomatic AND endoscopic AND histologic outcomes (strong, low); providers are advised NOT to monitor symptoms alone, since symptoms do not strongly correlate with endoscopic or histologic disease activity. Perform endoscopy to assess response 8-12 weeks after starting a new therapy such as PPI, topical steroid, or food elimination diet; for dupilumab the assessment interval may range from 12 to 24 weeks based on clinical trial findings. Providers MAY consider using a histologic response threshold of <15 eos/hpf, with the improvement in eosinophil count interpreted in the context of other histologic features, endoscopic findings, and symptoms, the guideline frames this as a 'may consider' key concept rather than a fixed target. Follow-up should be individualized and at shorter intervals for patients with complications (food impaction, perforation, strictures requiring dilation, malnutrition); repeat endoscopy after any treatment change such as dose reduction; care gaps of 2 years or more are associated with progression to fibrostenosis. PEDIATRIC-SPECIFIC: in children with EoE and dysphagia, an esophagram is suggested to evaluate fibrostenotic disease (conditional, very low); evaluation by a feeding therapist and/or dietician is suggested as an adjunctive intervention in children with feeding dysfunction (conditional, very low); growth, development including eating skills, and nutrition are treatment goals in children in addition to symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic goals.
Alexander R … Ravi K · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
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):419-437ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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).
Szentesi A … Hungarian Pancreatic Study Group · Pancreatology : Official Journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) .. [et Al.] · IF 3.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
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), 2019ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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).
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.ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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.
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):419-437ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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).
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.
Decision at stakewhether to continue colorectal cancer screening in adults aged 75 to 85
For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant).…The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 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 standardShowHide
For average-risk adults, colorectal cancer screening is routine from age 45-75 (2021 update lowered the start age from 50 to 45; USPSTF/USMSTF/ACS concordant). For ages 76-85, the decision to start or continue is individualized, based on shared decision-making that weighs prior screening history, comorbidity, life expectancy, CRC risk, and patient preference (USPSTF Grade C). Screening is not recommended/offered at age 86 or older. The specific USMSTF criterion for stopping in previously well-screened patients is: individuals up to date with screening who have negative prior screening (particularly high-quality colonoscopy) should consider stopping at age 75 OR when life expectancy is less than 10 years, not 5 years. Individuals without adequate prior screening may be considered for screening up to age 85 depending on age and comorbidities. New alarm symptoms (iron deficiency anemia, GI bleeding, change in bowel habits, weight loss) always warrant workup regardless of age or screening status; this remains sound general practice though it is not a specific guideline citation.
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.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG); Shaheen NJ, Falk GW, Iyer PG, Souza RF, Yadlapati RH, Sauer BG, Wani S. "Diagnosis and Management of Barrett's Esophagus: An Updated ACG Guideline." American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2022;117(4):559-587.ShowHide
Decision at stakediagnosis of Barrett's esophagus without endoscopy
DIAGNOSIS: Diagnosis of BE requires intestinal metaplasia in the tubular esophagus (conditional, very-low certainty) AND columnar mucosa of at least 1 cm (conditional, 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. The rest of this standard includes SURVEILLANCE, MEDICAL, ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY and 1 more.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
DIAGNOSIS: Diagnosis of BE requires intestinal metaplasia in the tubular esophagus (conditional, very-low certainty) AND columnar mucosa of at least 1 cm (conditional, low). Patients with a normal-appearing Z line, or a Z line with <1 cm proximal displacement from the top of the gastric folds and no visible lesion, should NOT undergo routine biopsy. At screening endoscopy with findings consistent with possible BE, obtain at least 8 biopsies, following the Seattle protocol (4-quadrant biopsies every 1-2 cm plus targeted sampling of any visible lesion) for segments longer than 4 cm (conditional, low). The at-least-8-biopsy minimum applies to all screening exams regardless of segment length and is NOT waived for shorter (<=4 cm) segments; when a short segment - typically 1-2 cm, e.g. a single tongue - will not physically support 8 biopsies, obtain at least 4 biopsies per cm of circumferential BE and 1 biopsy per cm of tongues of BE, so that short segments are still adequately sampled and dysplasia or cancer is not missed. Dysplasia of any grade must be confirmed by a SECOND pathologist with expertise in GI pathology (STRONG, low). SURVEILLANCE: Use both high-definition white-light endoscopy AND chromoendoscopy (STRONG, moderate) with a structured biopsy protocol (STRONG, low). Intervals are dictated by degree of dysplasia (conditional, very-low) and by segment length (STRONG, moderate): nondysplastic BE <3 cm - EGD every 5 years; nondysplastic BE >=3 cm - EGD every 3 years. Indefinite for dysplasia (confirmed by a second pathologist), any length - escalate to twice-daily PPI and repeat EGD within 6 months; if still indefinite, EGD annually; if downgraded/upgraded, follow the NDBE or LGD algorithm. Confirmed LGD opting for surveillance - EGD at 6 months, at 12 months from diagnosis, then annually, sampling with 4-quadrant biopsies every 1 cm. MEDICAL: At least once-daily PPI in patients with BE without allergy or other contraindication to PPI use (conditional, VERY-LOW certainty); higher/twice-daily dosing is reserved for those who need it for symptom control, as the incremental antineoplastic benefit of dose escalation is unclear. Suggest AGAINST antireflux surgery as an antineoplastic measure (conditional, low). No recommendation could be made on aspirin plus PPI chemoprevention, on WATS-3D, or on p53 IHC/TissueCypher. ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY: For BE with HGD or intramucosal carcinoma (T1a), EET is recommended over ESOPHAGECTOMY (STRONG, moderate). For confirmed LGD, endoscopic therapy is SUGGESTED to reduce progression to HGD/EAC, with endoscopic surveillance of confirmed LGD explicitly retained as an ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVE (conditional, moderate) - this is a shared-decision-making choice, not a mandate. Resect all visible lesions endoscopically BEFORE ablation of the residual segment (conditional, very-low); RFA is the preferred ablative modality; goal is complete eradication of intestinal metaplasia. EET should be performed at high-volume centers (conditional, very-low). T1b (submucosal) cancer: the default is surgical referral for esophagectomy, BUT EET may be considered for sm1 disease (invasion into the upper third of the submucosa, depth <500 micrometers) with low-risk features - well differentiated, <2 cm, no lymphovascular invasion, negative deep margin. Patients with high-risk histology are best treated with esophagectomy unless they are poor surgical candidates, for whom multidisciplinary discussion of alternatives such as ADJUVANT chemoradiation may be appropriate. POST-EET: An endoscopic surveillance program is recommended after successful EET (STRONG, moderate), with intervals set by the BASELINE degree of dysplasia: baseline LGD - 1 year, 3 years, then every 2 years; baseline HGD or T1a - 3, 6, and 12 months, then annually.
Somerset T … Fitzgerald RC · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
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.
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), 2023ShowHide
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 standardShowHide
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.
Everything else this week38 that cleared the barShowHide
Ranked below the cards above, not excluded: these met the bar and were read and scored the same way. One line each, grouped by subspecialty, highest signal first; click through for the paper.
Also screened this week30 papers read, not selectedShowHide
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 →