← Issue №4/ week of Jul 26, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 21 Endoscopy papers in this issue, as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few; this is the section, whole.

Sections this issue
Filter

All 21, in full

most clinically useful first · the 2 the issue led with are ruled in green
Everything here, in one line each21
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.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· 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 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 standard

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.

USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Levin TR … Williams KN · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
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=577 · Jul 24, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Endoscopic Ultrasound and Clinical Features for Differentiating Autoimmune Pancreatitis and Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

New evidencepancreatic cancerautoimmune pancreatitisEUSbiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider integrating these four EUS and clinical features (IgG4, CA19-9, vascular involvement, diffuse reduced echogenicity) when evaluating pancreatic masses suspicious for AIP vs. PDAC, but await prospective validation and external validation before relying solely on this model due to its retrospective design and risk of overfitting.
What it foundA model combining elevated IgG4, elevated CA19-9, vascular involvement, and diffuse reduced echogenicity on EUS differentiated AIP from PDAC with 95.5% accuracy (AUC 0.984) in a validation cohort, outperforming clinical- or EUS-only models.
ContextRefines current diagnostic uncertainty by combining EUS and clinical features into a nomogram, outperforming prior approaches using either modality alone.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines®): Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2025, verified directly against the metastatic first-line algorithm (PANC-10) and Principles of Systemic Therapy (PANC-F, 6 of 13), footnote y: "Good PS is defined as ECOG 0-1 ... and intermediate PS is defined as ECOG 2"; peer-reviewed publication of this guideline series with a resolving identifier: Tempero MA, et al. Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19(4):439-457.

Decision at stakedifferentiating autoimmune pancreatitis from pancreatic ductal 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 ↗
Zhang Y … Yang A · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · 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.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· 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 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 standard

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.

USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
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.
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.

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 standard

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.

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. · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Somerset T … Fitzgerald RC · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · 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
Endoscopy retrospective · n=3,087 · Jul 24, 2026 · J Hepatobil Pancreat Sci · IF 3.8

Visceral Adipose Tissue as an Independent Predictor of Severe Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study.

New evidenceacute pancreatitisERCPbiomarker
Clinical takeawayAcknowledge VAT >95 cm2 as a risk factor for severe PEP in patients undergoing ERCP; however, no specific clinical action is recommended based on this observational finding.
What it foundVisceral adipose tissue (VAT) >95 cm2 was the only independent risk factor for severe post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR 2.79, p=0.04), with severe cases having higher VAT (132.7 vs. 80.1 cm2, p<0.01).
ContextRefines prior evidence on PEP risk factors by identifying VAT as a specific predictor of severity, though clinical utility remains unclear.
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 stakereduce post-ERCP pancreatitis risk

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.

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 ↗
Uemura S … Shimizu M · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · IF 3.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=49 · Jul 24, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Esophagogastric Junction Marking Clip Placement During Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.

New evidenceEUSendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider placing an EGJ marking clip during EUS-HGS to reduce transesophageal puncture risk, especially for less experienced endoscopists, while monitoring for procedure-related adverse events.
What it foundNo transesophageal punctures occurred in 49 EUS-HGS cases with EGJ marking clip placement (vs historical rates without clips), despite 87.8% performed by beginners; adverse events occurred in 4.6%.
ContextChallenges prior assumption that transesophageal puncture is an unavoidable risk in EUS-HGS, particularly during the learning curve.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930

Decision at stakethe safety of endoscopic ultrasound guided hepaticogastrostomy

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

Our full summary of this standard

Distinguish benign from malignant biliary strictures using cross-sectional imaging (MRI/MRCP preferred over contrast-enhanced CT) plus laboratory tests, interpreting CA19-9 after biliary decompression and never relying on tumor markers alone; check serum IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected (HISORt criteria). Per the ESGE 2024 diagnostic work-up guideline, tissue-acquisition strategy now branches by stricture location rather than following one linear sequence: for DISTAL extrahepatic strictures with jaundice and no pancreatic mass, combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA, end-cutting FNB needle) plus ERCP-based tissue acquisition (standard brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy) is the strongly preferred first-line approach; for PERIHILAR strictures, obtain brush cytology plus fluoroscopy-guided biopsy at index ERCP, escalate indeterminate strictures to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy (with intraductal ultrasound/confocal laser endomicroscopy selectively), and reserve EUS-TA for cases where ERCP-based sampling is insufficient and curative resection is not feasible and/or extraluminal disease is accessible; escalate any positive or indeterminate feature to multidisciplinary tumor board. Manage benign anastomotic and chronic-pancreatitis strictures with a fully-covered self-expanding metal stent for 6-12 months (multiple plastic stents when FCSEMS is contraindicated, hepaticojejunostomy if refractory). Treat cholangitis with biliary obstruction as an indication for urgent biliary drainage, but do not instrument every obstructed sector: for hilar or multisegmental strictures (Bismuth II-IV), ESGE suggests draining ≥50% of the liver volume and avoiding opacification of biliary ducts that will not be drained (weak recommendation, low-quality evidence), because post-ERCP cholangitis frequently complicates injection of obstructed ducts that are not subsequently drained, whereas drainage of >50% of liver volume is associated with less cholangitis and longer survival; ESGE suggests antibiotic prophylaxis before biliary stenting in selected patients (e.g., immunocompromised patients, expected incomplete biliary drainage; weak recommendation, moderate-quality evidence), with a full antibiotic course if adequate drainage is not achieved during the procedure. Direct etiology-specific care for Strasberg bile-duct injuries, post-transplant strictures (ASGE 2023: ERCP preferred over PTBD, covered SEMS preferred over multiple plastic stents), IgG4-sclerosing cholangitis, Mirizzi syndrome, and choledochal cysts.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Endoscopic biliary stenting: indications, choice of stents, and results: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline, Updated October 2017", Endoscopy 2018;50(9):910-930 · reviewed 2026-07-20 ↗
Sugimoto M … Ohira H · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=84 · Jul 28, 2026 · J Hepatobil Pancreat Sci · IF 3.8

Feasibility and Impact of Traction Band-Assisted Cannulation for Difficult Biliary Cannulation in Patients With Periampullary Diverticulum: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

New evidenceERCPendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider TRIAS over conventional cannulation for difficult biliary cannulation in PAD patients to reduce reliance on advanced techniques, but expect similar overall cannulation success.
What it foundintroduces traction band-assisted cannulation as a method to reduce the need for advanced cannulation techniques
ContextChallenges current reliance on advanced cannulation techniques in PAD by showing TRIAS can reduce their use without compromising success rates compared to conventional methods.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· EASL (European Association for the Study of the Liver), "EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones," Journal of Hepatology 2016;65(1):146-181, 2016

Decision at stakethe approach to difficult biliary cannulation in patients with periampullary diverticulum

In severe acute cholecystitis or difficult biliary anatomy, subtotal cholecystectomy (laparoscopic or open) or percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by later cholecystectomy are options; percutaneous cholecystostomy is a treatment alternative in high-risk patients, but whether definitive cholecystectomy is still needed afterwards is explicitly unsolved (no RCTs) and cholecystectomy should be considered, since patients who improve after cholecystostomy may worsen during follow-up.

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

Abdominal ultrasound should be performed in a patient with a recent history of biliary pain (high quality evidence; strong recommendation); in case of strong clinical suspicion of gallbladder stones and negative abdominal ultrasound, EUS (or magnetic resonance imaging) may be performed (low quality; weak). Cholecystectomy is the preferred treatment for symptomatic gallbladder stones (moderate quality; strong recommendation), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the standard method, including for acute calculous cholecystitis (high quality; strong), although mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy (laparotomy <8 cm) is an equally acceptable alternative (high quality; strong). For uncomplicated biliary colic, cholecystectomy should be performed as early as possible (low quality; weak recommendation); EASL qualifies that cholecystectomy may not be necessary if biliary colic has not occurred within the last 5 years or after just one episode of colic (~50% chance of another colic within 1 year). For acute cholecystitis, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy preferably within 72 h of admission should be performed by surgeons with adequate expertise (high quality; strong recommendation). Antibiotics are NOT recommended at all times in mild acute cholecystitis, i.e. without cholangitis, bacteremia/sepsis, abscess or perforation (very low quality; weak recommendation). Biliary colic should be treated with NSAIDs, e.g. diclofenac 50-75 mg IM, ketoprofen 200 mg IV, or indomethacin 50 mg IV / 2 × 75 mg suppositories (moderate quality; weak), with spasmolytics and, for severe symptoms, opioids such as buprenorphine (low quality; strong). In severe acute cholecystitis or difficult biliary anatomy, subtotal cholecystectomy (laparoscopic or open) or percutaneous cholecystostomy followed by later cholecystectomy are options; percutaneous cholecystostomy is a treatment alternative in high-risk patients, but whether definitive cholecystectomy is still needed afterwards is explicitly unsolved (no RCTs) and cholecystectomy should be considered, since patients who improve after cholecystostomy may worsen during follow-up. In the elderly and those with high anaesthetic risk, cholecystectomy should be performed for gallstone complications (acute cholecystitis, gallstone pancreatitis, obstructive jaundice) as soon as general status allows (low quality; weak), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy should not be withheld on the basis of chronological age alone (very low quality; weak). Routine treatment is NOT recommended for asymptomatic gallbladder stones (very low quality; weak recommendation). Oral bile-acid litholysis, alone or with ESWL, is not recommended (moderate quality; strong). In patients with simultaneous gallbladder and bile duct stones, early laparoscopic cholecystectomy should be performed within 72 h after preoperative ERCP for choledocholithiasis (moderate quality; strong); same-day but separate ERCP and cholecystectomy are not recommended. Before elective cholecystectomy, abdominal ultrasound confirming stones is required (moderate quality; strong) and no other routine tests are necessary; liver biochemical tests in individually selected cases (very low quality; weak). Routine intraoperative cholangiography is not supported by current evidence.

EASL (European Association for the Study of the Liver), "EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of gallstones," Journal of Hepatology 2016;65(1):146-181, 2016 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Mandai K … Yoshimoto T · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · IF 3.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=30 · Jul 28, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy for Pediatric Achalasia: 36-Month Outcomes from a Single-Center Cohort Study.

New evidenceachalasiapediatric
Clinical takeawayConsider POEM as a durable treatment option for children with achalasia (typically ages 8-14), though comparative efficacy vs pneumatic dilation or Heller myotomy remains unstudied in this cohort.
What it foundPOEM achieved 93.3% clinical success (Eckardt score ≤ 3) in pediatric achalasia (mean age 11.15 ± 2.68 years) at 36-month follow-up, with no major adverse events reported.
ContextProvides long-term (36-month) efficacy data for POEM in pediatric achalasia, a population with limited evidence.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731

Decision at stakethe use of POEM for pediatric achalasia

FOLLOW-UP: use timed barium esophagram as the first-line test to evaluate continued or recurrent symptoms after definitive therapy (strong, very low); the Eckardt score alone or HRM alone should not be used to define treatment failure. Do not obtain routine gastrografin esophagram after dilation, reserve it for clinical suspicion of perforation (strong, low). RETREATMENT: PD is appropriate and safe after failed surgical myotomy or POEM (strong, moderate), and POEM is safe in patients who previously underwent PD or LHM (strong, low). SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.

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 TREATMENT.

Our full summary of this standard

Evaluate for achalasia any patient with dysphagia to solids and liquids, regurgitation, or chest pain, and specifically consider it in patients presumed to have GERD who do not respond to acid suppression (strong recommendation, very low quality). Diagnose with high-resolution manometry using esophageal pressure topography rather than conventional line tracings (strong, high). Subtype by Chicago Classification (I, II, III), this is a conditional recommendation (low quality): subtyping may inform prognosis and treatment choice, with type II having the most favorable outcomes and type III requiring a longer/tailored myotomy; ACG does not make subtyping mandatory for diagnosis. Always perform upper endoscopy in suspected achalasia to exclude pseudoachalasia from an obstructing mass; use cross-sectional imaging and/or endoscopic ultrasound in difficult cases (ACG states this as narrative guidance, not a numbered recommendation, and specifies no biopsy protocol). FLIP is described as complementary, useful in patients who cannot tolerate manometry and as an arbiter in difficult cases where manometry fails to diagnose achalasia despite high clinical suspicion, not as a required confirmatory test. TREATMENT: pneumatic dilation is superior to medical therapy for symptom relief and esophageal emptying (strong, very low). PD and laparoscopic Heller myotomy are both effective and equivalent short- and long-term for patients who are candidates for definitive therapy (strong, high). POEM and LHM give comparable symptomatic improvement (strong, moderate). POEM and PD give comparable symptomatic improvement in type I or II (conditional, low). For type III, tailored POEM or LHM is recommended as a more efficacious disruptive LES therapy than PD (strong, moderate), ACG does NOT single out POEM over LHM for type III. When surgical myotomy is performed, add fundoplication: myotomy with fundoplication is superior to myotomy alone for controlling distal esophageal acid exposure (strong, moderate), using either Dor or Toupet (conditional, moderate). Botulinum toxin injection is first-line therapy for patients unfit for definitive therapy (strong, moderate), and prior botulinum toxin does not significantly compromise subsequent myotomy performance or outcomes (strong, low). POEM carries a higher incidence of GERD than LHM with fundoplication or PD (strong, moderate). Do not place stents for long-term dysphagia (strong, low). Reserve esophagectomy for surgically fit patients with megaesophagus who have failed other interventions (strong, low), and consider Heller myotomy before esophagectomy in patients who failed PD and POEM when the anatomy is conducive and there is evidence of incomplete myotomy (strong, very low). FOLLOW-UP: use timed barium esophagram as the first-line test to evaluate continued or recurrent symptoms after definitive therapy (strong, very low); the Eckardt score alone or HRM alone should not be used to define treatment failure. Do not obtain routine gastrografin esophagram after dilation, reserve it for clinical suspicion of perforation (strong, low). RETREATMENT: PD is appropriate and safe after failed surgical myotomy or POEM (strong, moderate), and POEM is safe in patients who previously underwent PD or LHM (strong, low). SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731 · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Feng Y … Liu H · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · 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
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=732 · Jul 25, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in autoimmune pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysissystematic reviewautoimmune pancreatitisEUS
Clinical takeawayConsider using a 22G Franseen or Fork-tip needle for EUS-FNB when AIP is suspected after inconclusive imaging/serology/other organ evaluation, as these yield higher diagnostic accuracy than other needle types, with a low adverse event rate.
What it foundEUS-FNB had 79% diagnostic accuracy (73%-83%) for AIP, with higher accuracy for Franseen (83%, 75%-90%) and Fork-tip (90%, 80%-99%) needles vs. reverse/forward-bevel (51%, 31%-71%), and for 22G (85%, 79%-91%) vs. 19G/20G (70%, 42%-98%) needles. Adverse events occurred in 4% (1%-8%).
ContextConfirms EUS-FNB as a viable diagnostic tool for AIP in diagnostically challenging cases, refining needle choice based on accuracy data.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Chronic Pancreatitis' (Gardner TB et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115(3):322-339). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000535, PMID 32022720.

Decision at stakethe etiologic workup for chronic pancreatitis including autoimmune pancreatitis evaluation

Screen for PDAC per lifetime risk and pursue etiologic workup via TIGAR-O v2, including genetic testing and autoimmune pancreatitis 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

Confirm chronic pancreatitis on CROSS-SECTIONAL IMAGING, CT for late calcific disease, MRI/MRCP (with secretin where available) for earlier ductal and parenchymal change, EUS an acceptable alternative; per ACG 2020, "Diagnosis is made usually on cross-sectional imaging, with modalities such as endoscopic ultrasonography and pancreatic function tests playing a secondary role". Fecal elastase does NOT confirm chronic pancreatitis: it is a test of exocrine FUNCTION and is the appropriate initial test for the exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (EPI) that chronic pancreatitis causes, a consequence of the disease, not the diagnosis of it. A normal fecal elastase does not exclude chronic pancreatitis and a low one does not establish it. Per AGA 2023, fecal elastase must be run on a semi-solid or solid stool specimen; below 100 mcg/g is good evidence of EPI and 100-200 mcg/g is indeterminate (below 200 mcg/g is the cutoff commonly used to screen). Then manage with smoking and alcohol cessation, PERT for exocrine insufficiency titrated to symptoms, fat-soluble vitamin and bone surveillance, and individualized type 3c diabetes control, considering insulin early in patients with marked hyperglycemia or symptoms of insulin deficiency. Treat pain with a stepwise ladder from scheduled acetaminophen and neuromodulators to EUS-guided celiac plexus block and endoscopic/surgical intervention, referring early for surgery per ESCAPE 2020 in candidates with main pancreatic duct obstruction. Screen for PDAC per lifetime risk and pursue etiologic workup via TIGAR-O v2, including genetic testing and autoimmune pancreatitis evaluation.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Chronic Pancreatitis' (Gardner TB et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2020;115(3):322-339). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000000535, PMID 32022720. · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Yu H … Liang J · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=150 · Jul 27, 2026 · Clin Transl Gastro · IF 3.4

Establishment and Evaluation of a Probe-based Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy Training System for Gastric Cancerous Lesions Diagnosis: Evidence from a National Training Program.

New evidenceendoscopy qualityhealth services
Clinical takeawayEvaluate the feasibility of implementing short-term systematic pCLE training programs for novice endoscopists to enhance diagnostic proficiency for gastric cancerous lesions, considering resource requirements and trainee performance gaps versus pCLE experts.
What it foundpCLE trainees achieved diagnostic accuracy comparable to ME experts (no significant differences), though significantly lower than pCLE experts (P=0.036). pCLE experts outperformed ME experts in accuracy (P=0.039) and specificity (P=0.022).
ContextThis study provides evidence that pCLE training can achieve diagnostic performance on par with established magnifying endoscopy (ME) techniques, though trainees underperform compared to pCLE experts.
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.

Pan P … Bai Y · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=22 · Jul 25, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

A Practical Endoscopic Treatment Strategy for Appendiceal Orifice Lesions Using Forceps-Assisted Polypectomy (Strip Biopsy).

New evidencepolypectomyESD
Clinical takeawayConsider strip biopsy for small appendiceal orifice lesions without malignant features, as it offers faster resection with comparable safety to ESD in this study, but be aware of higher margin positivity (50% vs. 13%).
What it foundForceps-assisted polypectomy (strip biopsy) for carefully selected small appendiceal orifice lesions without malignant features achieved 93% en bloc resection vs. 100% with ESD, with significantly shorter procedure time (6.6 vs. 45.9 min) and no perforations, but had higher margin positivity (50% vs. 13%).
ContextChallenges current overtreatment with ESD for small lesions, offering a simpler alternative with similar short-term outcomes but higher margin positivity.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020

Decision at stakethe choice of endoscopic resection technique for appendiceal orifice lesions

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

Our full summary of this standard

After polyp removal, assign the next colonoscopy surveillance interval using USMSTF 2020 based on polyp number, size, and histology (e.g., 1-2 tubular adenomas <10 mm 7-10 years; 3-4 tubular adenomas <10 mm 3-5 years; 5-10 tubular adenomas <10 mm, any adenoma ≥10 mm, or adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia 3 years; >10 adenomas 1 year with polyposis evaluation; and for serrated polyps, 1-2 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm 5-10 years, 3-4 sessile serrated lesions <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm 3-5 years, and a sessile serrated lesion ≥10 mm or with dysplasia or a traditional serrated adenoma 3 years), and apply the shortest interval indicated when findings are mixed. Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps. Refer for genetic evaluation when Lynch, FAP/AFAP/MAP, or serrated polyposis syndrome criteria are met.

US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer (Gupta S, et al.), "Recommendations for Follow-Up After Colonoscopy and Polypectomy: A Consensus Update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer," Gastroenterology, 2020 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Iida T … Chiba H · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=136 · Jul 24, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Diagnostic Performance and Feasibility of the CC100 Colon Capsule Endoscopy System: A Prospective Multicenter Study.

New evidencecolonoscopycapsule endoscopyendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider CC100 colon capsule endoscopy as a minimally invasive alternative for colorectal cancer screening in average-risk patients aged 45+ who decline or are unsuitable for conventional colonoscopy, given its high specificity for polyps ≥6 mm. No clinical action yet for routine use over colonoscopy due to lower sensitivity and incomplete visualization in 8.82%.
What it foundCC100 colon capsule endoscopy achieved complete colonic visualization in 91.18% (124/136) of participants and showed 86.67% sensitivity and 98.63% specificity for detecting polyps ≥6 mm compared to conventional colonoscopy. No capsule retention or procedure-related adverse events occurred.
ContextChallenges current reliance on colonoscopy by offering a less invasive option with reasonable accuracy, though colonoscopy remains the gold standard for completeness and sensitivity.
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, 2017

Decision at stakewhether colon capsule endoscopy is a viable alternative for 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.

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, 2017 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Xie X … Yang S · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy review · Jul 28, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Peroral Endoscopic Myotomy versus Flexible Endoscopic Septotomy for Zenker's Diverticulum: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

New evidencecost-effectivenesshealth services
Clinical takeawayFor short-term (12-month) cost-effectiveness in older patients (typically 70-year-old), prefer FES over Z-POEM in Zenker's diverticulum. For longer-term (24-month) outcomes, consider Z-POEM due to its durability and reduced reintervention needs, but weigh against higher upfront costs.
What it foundIn a 70-year-old patient with Zenker's diverticulum, Z-POEM had higher costs ($5,706 more) and modest incremental effectiveness (0.01461 QALYs) vs FES over 12 months, with an ICER of $390,344/QALY, exceeding WTP thresholds; at 24 months, Z-POEM became cost-effective due to lower recurrence and reduced need for reintervention, despite higher upfront costs.
ContextRefines current practice by quantifying the cost-effectiveness trade-offs between Z-POEM and FES in older patients, highlighting the time horizon and upfront costs as critical factors in decision-making.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· ASGE 2018 + ESGE 2017 Zenker + Z-POEM consensus

Decision at stakethe choice between Z-POEM and FES for symptomatic Zenker's diverticula ≥2 cm

Confirm suspected Zenker's diverticulum with a video barium swallow FIRST (never blind EGD), sizing the pouch as small (<2 cm), medium (2-4 cm), or large (>4 cm). Manage symptomatic small (<2 cm) diverticula with dietary modification, postprandial neck flexion, and monitoring. For symptomatic diverticula ≥2 cm, offer intervention, endoscopic Z-POEM (emerging gold standard) or flexible endoscopic septum division when anatomy is favorable, with open transcervical cricopharyngeal myotomy plus diverticulectomy reserved for very large or failed-endoscopic cases; botulinum toxin injection is an alternative for poor surgical candidates.

ASGE 2018 + ESGE 2017 Zenker + Z-POEM consensus · reviewed 2026-05-09
Sonaiya S … Adler DG · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=846 · Jul 24, 2026 · Pancreatology · IF 3.0

Sampling performance of EUS-Guided fine-needle biopsy in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysisEUSbiomarkersystematic review
Clinical takeawayConsider using EUS-guided FNB over FNA for suspected PNETs when histological and Ki-67 assessment is needed, with preference for the Sharkcore needle if available, acknowledging moderate to high risk of bias and low certainty of evidence.
What it foundFNB achieves high adequacy and Ki-67 assessment rates compared to FNA
ContextRefines current practice by providing comparative data supporting FNB over FNA for PNETs, though evidence certainty is limited.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors (current Version 1.2026 / Version 2.2025; peer-reviewed published edition Version 2.2021, criteria unchanged), J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021

Decision at stakeusing EUS-guided biopsy for tissue acquisition in suspected PNETs

Per NCCN Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors v2.2025: Work up a suspected pancreatic NET with multiphasic pancreatic-protocol contrast CT and/or MRI; consider EUS with biopsy (FNB) for tissue; use somatostatin-receptor imaging with 68Ga- or 64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT when it will change management.

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

Our full summary of this standard

Per NCCN Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors v2.2025: Work up a suspected pancreatic NET with multiphasic pancreatic-protocol contrast CT and/or MRI; consider EUS with biopsy (FNB) for tissue; use somatostatin-receptor imaging with 68Ga- or 64Cu-DOTATATE PET/CT when it will change management. Obtain biochemical/hormonal evaluation only when a functional syndrome is clinically suspected (not routine for nonfunctioning tumors). Grade by mitotic count and Ki-67 under the WHO classification of neuroendocrine neoplasms (G1 <3%, G2 3-20%, G3 >20%). Consider genetics referral/germline testing for inherited syndromes, principally MEN1 and VHL (less commonly NF1, TSC). LOCALIZED well-differentiated G1/G2: for an incidentally found sporadic nonfunctioning tumor <=2 cm without high-risk features, that is, none of the worrisome imaging/pathologic features that favor resection: main pancreatic-duct dilation (>3 mm) or biliary-duct obstruction, pathologic regional lymphadenopathy on cross-sectional imaging, or vascular encasement/invasion of adjacent structures (grade, functional/symptomatic status, size >2 cm, and interval growth are addressed separately below), NCCN lists BOTH observation and surgery as options; observed lesions are followed with multiphasic CT/MRI (± SSTR-PET as indicated) at 3-12 months, then every 6-12 months if stable. For tumors >2 cm, functional/symptomatic, higher-grade, or enlarging on surveillance, surgical resection (enucleation, distal pancreatectomy, or pancreaticoduodenectomy by location) is recommended and can be curative. ADVANCED/METASTATIC well-differentiated: somatostatin analogs (octreotide LAR or lanreotide) are a preferred first-line option for SSTR-positive, lower-grade/lower-proliferation tumors. 177Lu-DOTATATE PRRT is now also a first-line option for SSTR-positive disease on the strength of NETTER-2, whose population was newly diagnosed grade 2/3 GEP-NET with Ki-67 10-55% (median PFS 22.8 vs 8.5 months), keep the Ki-67 10-55% window and SSTR-positivity as the qualifiers, not an open-ended 'Ki-67 >=10%.' Subsequent-line options for progressive disease include everolimus, sunitinib (pancreatic primary), CAPTEM (capecitabine + temozolomide), PRRT if not already used, and cabozantinib, FDA-approved March 26, 2025 and included by NCCN as a category 1 option for previously treated, unresectable/locally advanced/metastatic well-differentiated pancreatic NET (the FDA label specifies only 'previously treated,' without a required prior-drug sequence).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Neuroendocrine and Adrenal Tumors (current Version 1.2026 / Version 2.2025; peer-reviewed published edition Version 2.2021, criteria unchanged), J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Millan-Alanis JM … Maldonado-Garza HJ · Pancreatology : Official Journal of the International Association of Pancreatology (IAP) .. [et Al.] · IF 3.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=75 · Jul 28, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

The Effect of Nexpowder in Reducing Post-ESD Coagulation Syndrome in Proximal Colon Lesions: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

New evidenceESDhemostasiscolorectal cancer
Clinical takeawayProphylactic Nexpowder may reduce PECS risk in high-risk proximal colorectal ESD, but efficacy requires confirmation in prospective trials.
What it foundNexpowder was associated with lower PECS incidence (2.9% [CI 0.3-12.6]) vs no prophylaxis (20.0% [CI 9.9-34.2], p=0.032) in high-risk proximal colon ESD.
ContextFirst clinical evidence suggesting a topical barrier agent for PECS prevention; retrospective data with no standard prophylaxis comparator.
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.

Lee WM … Ko BM · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=590 · Jul 29, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

A multimodal artificial intelligence method for accurate diagnosis of autoimmune gastritis.

Diagnosticartificial intelligence
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a diagnostic AI tool not yet validated in real-world practice.
What it foundMultimodal AI diagnosed AIG with 93.1% sensitivity, 96.3% specificity, and 95.4% accuracy, outperforming unimodal models and expert endoscopists (all P<0.001).
ContextChallenges current reliance on unimodal (endoscopic or histologic) diagnosis of AIG, showing complementary value of integrating endoscopy, pathology, and lab data.
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.

Cao Y … Han Y · 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
← Back to issue №4 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS