← Issue №5/ week of Aug 2, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 18 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 18, in full

most clinically useful first · the 3 the issue led with are ruled in green
Everything here, in one line each18
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,585 · Aug 3, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Clinical Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Gastroenterostomy, Enteral Stenting, and Surgical Gastrojejunostomy for Malignant Gastric Outlet Obstruction: A Network Meta-Analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider EUS-GE as a preferred intervention for malignant gastric outlet obstruction in expert centers, given its lower re-intervention rates, higher clinical success, and shorter hospitalization compared to enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy, pending further studies in non-expert settings.
What it foundEUS-GE reduced re-intervention rates vs ES (RR 0.17) and SGJ (RR 0.3), increased clinical success vs ES (RR 1.20) and SGJ (RR 1.17), and shortened hospitalization by 6 days vs SGJ. Adverse events were reported but not detailed.
ContextThis network meta-analysis refines current practice by demonstrating EUS-GE's superiority over enteral stenting and surgical gastrojejunostomy in multiple outcomes, but applicability is currently limited to expert centers.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions," 2025 (Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(4):709-737)

Decision at stakechoosing between EUS-GE, enteral stenting, and surgical gastrojejunostomy for malignant gastric outlet obstruction

For dysplasia: endoscopic resection is suggested when the lesion has visible margins; if dysplasia is not endoscopically visible, repeat endoscopy with HDWLE and image-enhanced endoscopy by an experienced endoscopist; patients appropriate for endoscopic resection, particularly ESD, should be referred to a high-volume center with expertise in diagnosis and therapeutic resection of gastric neoplasia (strong recommendation).

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 with high-quality upper endoscopy: adequate mucosal cleansing and insufflation, high-definition white light endoscopy with image-enhanced endoscopy, and photodocumentation of anatomic landmarks. Take systematic biopsies per the updated Sydney protocol in at least two separate containers (antrum/incisura and corpus), with any targeted biopsies of mucosal abnormalities in additional separate containers; histology must report gastric intestinal metaplasia subtype (incomplete, complete, or mixed) and the severity and extent of atrophic gastritis and metaplasia, because subtype and extent are what drive risk stratification. ACG suggests surveillance endoscopy every 3 years for patients at high risk of progression, that is, patients whose GIM or atrophic gastritis carries at least one higher-risk feature: incomplete or mixed intestinal metaplasia subtype, extensive metaplasia/atrophy involving the corpus in addition to the antrum/incisura (advanced-stage disease, OLGA/OLGIM III/IV), a first-degree relative with gastric cancer, or membership in a high gastric-cancer-incidence population (high-risk race/ethnicity, or birth in or immigration from a high-incidence region), with the explicit qualifier that the interval may be individualized; patients with advanced-stage disease (OLGA/OLGIM III/IV) plus a first-degree relative with gastric cancer may warrant more intensive follow-up every 1-2 years. ACG suggests AGAINST endoscopic surveillance for low-risk GIM or atrophy (limited antral, complete-subtype metaplasia without additional risk factors), and recommends against routine endoscopic screening of the general US population; it found insufficient direct evidence from US populations to recommend screening on the basis of immigration status, race, or ethnicity alone. ACG strongly recommends testing for H. pylori by non-serologic methods with eradication if positive in all patients with gastric premalignant conditions and in patients with resected early gastric cancer, and recommends confirmation of eradication (strong recommendation, moderate-quality evidence). For dysplasia: endoscopic resection is suggested when the lesion has visible margins; if dysplasia is not endoscopically visible, repeat endoscopy with HDWLE and image-enhanced endoscopy by an experienced endoscopist; patients appropriate for endoscopic resection, particularly ESD, should be referred to a high-volume center with expertise in diagnosis and therapeutic resection of gastric neoplasia (strong recommendation). Individualized surveillance may be considered in autoimmune gastritis given increased neuroendocrine tumor and possible gastric cancer risk. Patients whose family history suggests a hereditary cancer syndrome should be referred for genetic counseling, with endoscopic screening individualized according to syndrome-specific guidelines and patient preference, ACG explicitly defers rather than specifying CDH1 or Lynch protocols itself.

American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Gastric Premalignant Conditions," 2025 (Am J Gastroenterol 2025;120(4):709-737) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Peng YN … Chen YI · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,950 · Aug 1, 2026 · Pancreas · IF 1.9

Intrapancreatic Fat Deposition and Risk of Post-ERCP Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysissystematic reviewbiomarkerERCP
Clinical takeawayconsider intrapancreatic fat deposition when assessing post-ERCP pancreatitis risk and severity
What it foundPatients with intrapancreatic fat deposition (IPFD) had 3.07x higher odds of post-ERCP pancreatitis (PEP) and 5.01x higher odds of severe PEP compared to those without IPFD (OR: 3.07; 95% CI: 2.00-4.73; P <0.001; I2 =4% for PEP; OR: 5.01; 95% CI: 1.47-17.04; P =0.010; I2 =0% for severe PEP).
ContextThis meta-analysis confirms and quantifies IPFD as an independent risk factor for PEP, refining prior evidence on preprocedural risk stratification. The findings highlight the need for further validation and consideration of targeted prophylactic strategies.
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 ↗
Cerbino B … Melo HSDS · Pancreas · IF 1.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
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 meta analysis · n=15,627 · Aug 1, 2026 · Pancreas · IF 1.9

Rectal Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs, Aggressive Hydration With Lactated Ringer's Solution, Somatostatin or Combinations for Prophylaxis Post-ERCP Acute Pancreatitis: A Network Meta-Analysis.

New evidenceERCPacute pancreatitismeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider combining rectal indomethacin and somatostatin for high-risk ERCP patients to prevent pancreatitis and hyperamylasemia, given its superior efficacy and safety profile compared to placebo, but note that direct RCT evidence is limited.
What it foundRectal indomethacin + somatostatin reduced post-ERCP pancreatitis (OR=0.31, 95% CI=0.14-0.69) and hyperamylasemia (OR=0.45, 95% CI=0.28-0.73) vs placebo, with the lowest bleeding (77.5%) and perforation (93.8%) risks.
ContextRefines current practice: confirms rectal NSAIDs and somatostatin individually reduce PEP, but suggests their combination may be optimal, though direct RCT evidence is limited.
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 stakepreventing post-ERCP pancreatitis with rectal indomethacin and periprocedural hydration

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 ↗
Shen Y, Bai Y · Pancreas · IF 1.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=48 · Aug 3, 2026 · J Hepatobil Pancreat Sci · IF 3.8

Endoscopic Ultrasonography for Diagnosing Common Bile Duct Stones With Negative Initial Imaging: A Multicenter Prospective Exploratory Study.

New evidencecholedocholithiasisEUShealth services
Clinical takeawayConsider EUS to confirm or exclude CBDS in high-likelihood patients (per ASGE criteria) with negative initial imaging before proceeding to ERCP.
What it foundEUS diagnosed CBDS with 95.8% accuracy (95% CI 85.7%-99.5%), 100% sensitivity, and 93.1% specificity in high-likelihood patients with negative initial imaging, avoiding unnecessary ERCP in 79.3% of stone-free cases.
ContextRefines current practice: EUS is highly accurate in this specific scenario where initial imaging is negative but clinical suspicion remains high, potentially reducing unnecessary ERCPs.
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 use of EUS for diagnosing CBDS in high-risk patients with negative initial imaging

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).

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 ↗
Sugiura R … Hokkaido Interventional EUS/ERCP study (HONEST) group · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · IF 3.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=180 · Aug 3, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Effect of a single dose antibiotic prophylaxis in scheduled bile duct interventions in Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.

New evidenceERCPbiliary stricture
Clinical takeawayConsider single-dose antibiotic prophylaxis for scheduled ERCP in PSC patients as a potential alternative to multi-day regimens, balancing reduced antibiotic exposure against the risk of increased cholangitis severity.
What it foundSingle-dose antibiotic prophylaxis in PSC ERCP did not increase post-ERCP cholangitis rates compared to multi-day prophylaxis (45.5% moderate/severe vs. 9.1%, p<0.001), but was associated with higher cholangitis severity.
ContextChallenges current multi-day antibiotic prophylaxis practices, suggesting comparable effectiveness in preventing cholangitis but with higher severity and reduced antibiotic use.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· AASLD 2023 (Bowlus et al., Hepatology 77:659-702) practice guidance on PSC and cholangiocarcinoma, supersedes AASLD 2010; alongside EASL 2022 sclerosing cholangitis guideline

Decision at stakethe duration of antibiotic prophylaxis in scheduled ERCP for PSC

Diagnose PSC with high-quality MRCP as the reference-standard imaging (avoid ERCP for diagnostic purposes; if MRCP findings are equivocal, repeat MRCP rather than proceeding to ERCP), reserving ERCP for therapeutic intervention, and exclude secondary sclerosing cholangitis/IgG4-related disease. Evaluate dominant strictures with brush cytology plus FISH (± cholangioscopy) before/at balloon dilation, repeating ERCP with sampling in 3 months if cytology is suspicious regardless of FISH result.

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 PSC with high-quality MRCP as the reference-standard imaging (avoid ERCP for diagnostic purposes; if MRCP findings are equivocal, repeat MRCP rather than proceeding to ERCP), reserving ERCP for therapeutic intervention, and exclude secondary sclerosing cholangitis/IgG4-related disease. No disease-modifying therapy is proven to alter transplant-free survival, but moderate-dose UDCA (13-23 mg/kg/day) may now be considered and continued in patients not enrolled in or eligible for a clinical trial if it produces a meaningful improvement in alkaline phosphatase (GGT in children) and/or symptoms by 12 months, discontinuing if no response; high-dose UDCA remains contraindicated. Perform annual abdominal MRI/MRCP with or without serum CA19-9 for cholangiocarcinoma/gallbladder-cancer surveillance in adults with large-duct PSC (not recommended under age 18 or in small-duct PSC). Manage gallbladder polyps by size, cholecystectomy for polyps >8 mm, ultrasound surveillance every 6 months for polyps ≤8 mm, rather than referring every polyp. For colorectal surveillance, begin surveillance colonoscopy at the time of PSC-IBD diagnosis (or at age 15 for childhood-onset disease) and repeat at 1-2 year intervals; in PSC without IBD, perform a diagnostic colonoscopy at PSC diagnosis and repeat every 5 years if IBD is not found. Evaluate dominant strictures with brush cytology plus FISH (± cholangioscopy) before/at balloon dilation, repeating ERCP with sampling in 3 months if cytology is suspicious regardless of FISH result. Treat recurrent cholangitis and cholestatic pruritus, maintain bone health, and refer for transplant evaluation for decompensation, intractable pruritus, recurrent bacterial cholangitis, or early-stage CCA per Mayo protocol.

AASLD 2023 (Bowlus et al., Hepatology 77:659-702) practice guidance on PSC and cholangiocarcinoma, supersedes AASLD 2010; alongside EASL 2022 sclerosing cholangitis guideline · reviewed 2026-07-24 ↗
Seeßle J … Merle U · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy review · Aug 3, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Surveillance of Metaplastic and Premalignant Conditions of the Esophagus and Colorectum in Older Adults: Expert Review.

Guideline / reviewguidelineepidemiologyhealth servicescost-effectiveness
Clinical takeawayUse comorbidity assessment and life expectancy tools to guide decisions on endoscopic surveillance in older adults ≥65, particularly for Barrett's esophagus and colorectal cancer, balancing potential benefits and harms.
What it foundFormal determination of comorbidities and use of life expectancy tools (e.g., those assessing ≥10 years remaining) may help differentiate older adults ≥65 likely to benefit from surveillance vs those likely to be harmed.
ContextRefines current practice by emphasizing individualized decision-making in older adults ≥65, addressing the limited evidence on surveillance yield and potential harms in this population.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· USMSTF 2021 (Patel et al., Gastrointest Endosc 2022;95:1-15) / USPSTF 2021 / ACS 2018

Decision at stakewhen to stop colorectal cancer screening in older adults based on life expectancy and comorbidities

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.

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 ↗
Calderwood AH … Falk GW · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy review · Aug 1, 2026 · Dig Endosc · IF 5.2

Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Tumors in Older Patients: Balancing Oncologic Benefit and Geriatric Risk.

New evidence
Clinical takeawayConsider integrated assessment of oncologic and geriatric factors (comorbidity burden, life expectancy) rather than chronological age alone when selecting older patients (≥75 years) for EP or surveillance of ampullary tumors. Use standardized geriatric assessment tools (specific tools not detailed in abstract) to aid decision-making.
What it foundShort-term endoscopic papillectomy (EP) outcomes in patients ≥75 years appear comparable to younger patients, but EP can cause fatal adverse events and often requires long-term surveillance or retreatment. Long-term prognosis is strongly influenced by comorbidity burden (high age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index associated with poorer overall survival).
ContextConfirms EP is feasible in selected older patients but highlights risks (fatal adverse events, need for surveillance) and refines selection criteria by emphasizing comorbidity burden over age alone. Challenges age-based exclusion by showing comparable short-term outcomes (details not specified).
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), 'Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline', 2021 (Vanbiervliet G, Strijker M, Arvanitakis M, et al. Endoscopy 2021;53(4):429-448; DOI 10.1055/a-1397-3198; PMID 33728632)

Decision at stakethe selection of endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenoma in older patients

TREATMENT: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension (strong, moderate), and en bloc resection of adenomas up to 20-30 mm to achieve R0 (strong, low). Technique is direct snare resection WITHOUT submucosal injection (strong, moderate) - but submucosal injection IS recommended before EMR of the extrapapillary duodenal-wall component of a laterally spreading ampullary tumor (strong, moderate); LST-p can be managed endoscopically, accepting higher intraprocedural and delayed bleeding risk (strong, low). ESGE suggests avoiding any biliary, pancreatic or biductal sphincterotomy prior to papillectomy (weak, very low) and suggests endocut current (weak, 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 PROPHYLAXIS, SURGERY, BILIARY DRAINAGE and 1 more.

Our full summary of this standard

ESGE 2021 gates everything on proven adenoma. ESGE recommends AGAINST diagnostic/therapeutic papillectomy when adenoma has not been proven (strong, low), and recommends histological confirmation by endoscopic biopsies in the case of low-grade-dysplasia adenoma before initiating any treatment (strong, low). Assessment uses a side-viewing endoscope when an ampullary tumor is suspected (strong, moderate); the cap-assisted method is suggested only when the papilla is not seen on forward-viewing endoscopy (weak, moderate); high-resolution virtual chromoendoscopy is suggested for diagnosis and staging (weak, low). Staging is EUS plus abdominal MRCP (strong, low); IDUS is suggested only in selected patients, with routine use balanced against training, cost and pancreatitis risk (weak, low). ESGE suggests that IHC, K-ras and p53 evaluation, PCR, and microsatellite instability testing should NOT routinely be applied to ampullary tumor biopsies to inform prognosis or potential treatment response (weak, low). TREATMENT: ESGE recommends endoscopic papillectomy for ampullary adenoma without intraductal extension (strong, moderate), and en bloc resection of adenomas up to 20-30 mm to achieve R0 (strong, low). Technique is direct snare resection WITHOUT submucosal injection (strong, moderate) - but submucosal injection IS recommended before EMR of the extrapapillary duodenal-wall component of a laterally spreading ampullary tumor (strong, moderate); LST-p can be managed endoscopically, accepting higher intraprocedural and delayed bleeding risk (strong, low). ESGE suggests avoiding any biliary, pancreatic or biductal sphincterotomy prior to papillectomy (weak, very low) and suggests endocut current (weak, low). PROPHYLAXIS: prophylactic pancreatic duct stenting is recommended to reduce post-papillectomy pancreatitis (strong, moderate); ESGE suggests routine rectal administration of 100 mg diclofenac or indomethacin immediately before papillectomy in all patients without NSAID contraindication (weak, low); if PD stenting is not possible, high-volume lactated Ringer's hydration is suggested (weak, low). Prophylactic hemostasis is individualized (strong, very low). SURGERY: ESGE only SUGGESTS considering surgical treatment when endoscopic resection is not feasible for technical reasons (e.g. periampullary diverticulum, size >4 cm) and in the case of intraductal involvement of >20 mm - and surveillance thereafter is still mandatory (weak, low). For adenoma with intraductal extension of 20 mm or less, ESGE suggests complementary techniques in expert centers (thermal ablation by cystotome, or RFA) with temporary biliary stenting (weak, low). For malignancy, ESGE recommends pancreaticoduodenectomy including lymphadenectomy for ampullary lesions of stage T1 or higher, including when pathology after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy reveals T1 adenocarcinoma (strong, low); for Tis ampullary cancer, transduodenal ampullectomy or endoscopic papillectomy may be considered sufficient when final pathology shows no residual disease (strong, low). BILIARY DRAINAGE: ESGE recommends against routine preoperative biliary drainage in surgically eligible ampullary cancer, reserving it for cholangitis, severe symptomatic jaundice (e.g. intense pruritus), delayed surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy in jaundiced patients (strong, moderate); when required, endoscopic SEMS insertion (strong, moderate); ERCP with SEMS in palliative settings (strong, high). FOLLOW-UP: long-term monitoring after endoscopic papillectomy or surgical ampullectomy by duodenoscopy with biopsies of the scar and of any abnormal area, within the first 3 months, at 6 and 12 months, and yearly thereafter for at least 5 years (strong, low). On recurrence, assess local extent with endoscopy plus biopsies, EUS and MRCP before any treatment (strong, low); benign residual or recurrent lesions may be managed endoscopically including APC and EMR (weak, low).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), 'Endoscopic management of ampullary tumors: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline', 2021 (Vanbiervliet G, Strijker M, Arvanitakis M, et al. Endoscopy 2021;53(4):429-448; DOI 10.1055/a-1397-3198; PMID 33728632) · reviewed 2026-07-19 ↗
Takada Y … Kawashima H · Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · IF 5.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=99 · Aug 3, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Suspected Small Bowel Bleeding: A Single-Center Retrospective Study on Long-Term Prognosis and Predictive Factors.

New evidencecapsule endoscopy
Clinical takeawayMonitor hemoglobin closely in SSBB patients with levels <8.0 g/dL and consider targeted interventions for anemia management, given its association with mortality.
What it foundHemoglobin <8.0 g/dL predicted mortality in SSBB (HR 9.75, 95% CI 1.26-75.15), with 5-year survival 56.8% vs 89.0% in those ≥8.0 g/dL.
ContextConfirms and quantifies the prognostic value of severe anemia (Hb <8.0 g/dL) in SSBB patients aged ≥20 years who underwent capsule endoscopy, independent of cancer or tumor status, refining risk stratification.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Update 2022", Endoscopy 2023;55(1):58-95, 2022/2023

Decision at stakeconservative management after a high-quality negative SBCE in suspected small-bowel bleeding

CROHN'S DISEASE: in SUSPECTED Crohn's with negative ileocolonoscopy, SBCE is the initial small-bowel modality ONLY in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis (strong, high); in that group ESGE explicitly does NOT recommend routine cross-sectional imaging or a patency capsule before SBCE (strong, HIGH quality). With obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, dedicated cross-sectional imaging (MRE/MR-enteroclysis or CTE/CT-enteroclysis) is used FIRST (strong, moderate), and a patency capsule is recommended before SBCE in suspected Crohn's with obstructive symptoms (strong, low), even when cross-sectional imaging is negative. In ESTABLISHED Crohn's, a patency capsule before SBCE is recommended to decrease the retention rate (strong, moderate).

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 SMALL-BOWEL TUMORS.

Our full summary of this standard

Suspected small-bowel bleeding (SSBB), bleeding between the ampulla of Vater and the ileocecal valve, suspected when GI bleeding persists after negative upper and lower endoscopy. Small-bowel capsule endoscopy (SBCE) is recommended as the FIRST-LINE examination, before other endoscopic and radiological tests (strong, moderate). ESGE does NOT recommend routine second-look endoscopy prior to SBCE in suspected small-bowel bleeding or iron-deficiency anemia (strong, low). In OVERT suspected small-bowel bleeding, perform SBCE as soon as possible after the bleeding episode, ideally within 48 hours, to maximize diagnostic and therapeutic yield (strong, high). Device-assisted enteroscopy (DAE) is recommended to confirm and possibly treat lesions identified by SBCE (strong, high); in overt suspected small-bowel bleeding, DAE should optimally be performed within 48-72 hours of the bleeding episode (strong, high). Where SBCE is unavailable or contraindicated, DAE and/or dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging may be considered first, depending on availability, expertise and clinical suspicion (weak, low). After a HIGH-QUALITY NEGATIVE SBCE, ESGE recommends conservative management (strong, moderate), the 2015 wording qualified this as patients without ongoing bleeding evidenced by overt bleeding or continued transfusion requirement, and the 2022 update carries this qualifier as a separate companion recommendation: for patients with a high-quality negative SBCE who have ONGOING overt bleeding or a continued need for blood transfusions, ESGE recommends further investigation using repeat SBCE, DAE, or dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging (strong, moderate). SBCE is also recommended first-line in iron-deficiency anemia when small-bowel evaluation is indicated (strong, high), and after unremarkable or nondiagnostic dedicated small-bowel cross-sectional imaging if likely to influence management (strong, low). CROHN'S DISEASE: in SUSPECTED Crohn's with negative ileocolonoscopy, SBCE is the initial small-bowel modality ONLY in the absence of obstructive symptoms or known bowel stenosis (strong, high); in that group ESGE explicitly does NOT recommend routine cross-sectional imaging or a patency capsule before SBCE (strong, HIGH quality). With obstructive symptoms or known stenosis, dedicated cross-sectional imaging (MRE/MR-enteroclysis or CTE/CT-enteroclysis) is used FIRST (strong, moderate), and a patency capsule is recommended before SBCE in suspected Crohn's with obstructive symptoms (strong, low), even when cross-sectional imaging is negative. In ESTABLISHED Crohn's, a patency capsule before SBCE is recommended to decrease the retention rate (strong, moderate). SMALL-BOWEL TUMORS: SBCE is recommended where there is increased risk of a small-bowel tumor (strong, moderate); ESGE does NOT recommend specific investigations before SBCE in suspected small-bowel tumor UNLESS the patient is considered at risk of capsule retention (strong, low). If imaging has ALREADY demonstrated a suspected small-bowel tumor, DAE is preferred over SBCE (strong, low). Cross-sectional imaging is recommended for staging and operability when SBCE shows a tumor with high diagnostic certainty (strong, low); where the capsule diagnosis is uncertain, biopsy sampling AND tattooing of the location by DAE is recommended (strong, low); for a subepithelial mass, confirm by DAE and/or cross-sectional imaging per local availability/expertise (strong, low). SBCE is NOT recommended for follow-up of treated small-bowel tumors, for lack of data (strong, low). PATENCY/RETENTION generally: GI obstruction is an absolute contraindication to SBCE. If the patency capsule is egested intact, retention of a real capsule is unlikely; if not egested within 30 hours, cross-sectional imaging (not plain abdominal radiography) is favored to localize it. In Peutz-Jeghers syndrome, routine patency capsule use is NOT recommended and should be considered case-by-case.

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), "Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline, Update 2022", Endoscopy 2023;55(1):58-95, 2022/2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Inoue M … Sakamoto N · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=61 · Aug 2, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Management of Gastric Leaks After Bariatric Surgery: Proposed Endoscopic Treatment Algorithm Based on 10-Year Experience.

New evidencebariatric endoscopyendoscopy qualityhemostasis
Clinical takeawayConsider an algorithmic approach to endoscopic treatment of post-bariatric leaks, selecting modalities based on clinical condition, timing, and fistula characteristics. Be aware of procedure-related complications (19.7%) and prioritize early intervention for leaks without self-limited cavities, as these were associated with failure (p=0.009).
What it foundEndoscopic treatment of post-bariatric surgery leaks achieved 90.2% success (55/61 patients), with 60% managed by a single modality (stent, OTSC, internal drainage, septal occluder, or septotomy) and 40% requiring combined techniques. The algorithm used considered clinical condition, timing of presentation, and fistula characteristics.
ContextConfirms endoscopic management as first-line for post-bariatric leaks but provides a structured, multimodal algorithm where prior practice was not standardized. Identifies self-limited cavities as a risk factor for failure and internal drainage as linked to longer treatment.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), "American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery literature review on prevention, diagnosis, and management of internal hernias after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass" (Altieri et al., Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases), 2023

Decision at stakeendoscopic treatment as first-line for post-bariatric surgery leaks

Diagnose and manage GI complications by bariatric procedure type: post-sleeve GERD with PPI, lifestyle, and conversion to RYGB if refractory; marginal ulcer with high-dose PPI BID plus sucralfate, NSAID avoidance, smoking cessation, and H. pylori test/treat; suspected internal hernia with acute post-RYGB SBO with urgent surgical exploration, using CT to support the diagnosis when it will not delay surgery, a normal CT does not exclude internal hernia, and exploration should proceed when clinical suspicion remains high despite negative imaging; and dumping syndrome with dietary modification (plus acarbose or octreotide for refractory late hypoglycemia).

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 and manage GI complications by bariatric procedure type: post-sleeve GERD with PPI, lifestyle, and conversion to RYGB if refractory; marginal ulcer with high-dose PPI BID plus sucralfate, NSAID avoidance, smoking cessation, and H. pylori test/treat; suspected internal hernia with acute post-RYGB SBO with urgent surgical exploration, using CT to support the diagnosis when it will not delay surgery, a normal CT does not exclude internal hernia, and exploration should proceed when clinical suspicion remains high despite negative imaging; and dumping syndrome with dietary modification (plus acarbose or octreotide for refractory late hypoglycemia). Maintain lifelong nutritional surveillance with annual labs and periodic bone density, and evaluate weight regain multidisciplinarily with endoscopic or surgical revision options.

American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS), "American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery literature review on prevention, diagnosis, and management of internal hernias after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass" (Altieri et al., Surgery for Obesity and Related Diseases), 2023 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Ödemiş B, Kenarlı K · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Aug 1, 2026 · Dig Endosc · IF 5.2

World Endoscopy Organization Position Statements for the Role of Endoscopy on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Superficial Non-Ampullary Duodenal Epithelial Tumors.

Guideline / reviewguidelineendoscopy qualitycomputer-aided detectionERCP
Clinical takeawayConsider endoscopic resection for SNADETs in elective cases with routine complete wound closure to mitigate complications; prioritize high-definition endoscopy and image-enhanced endoscopy (IEE) for diagnosis and characterization. Defer ER in high thromboembolic risk patients.
What it foundEndoscopic resection (ER) is the preferred approach for superficial non-ampullary duodenal epithelial tumors (SNADETs) in elective cases but carries substantial risk of complications, necessitating routine complete wound closure. High thromboembolic risk patients should defer ER.
ContextConfirms and refines current practice by endorsing ER for SNADETs while emphasizing the need for wound closure due to high complication risks and the importance of deferring ER in high thromboembolic risk patients, addressing prior geographic variability in management.
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.

Arantes VN … WEO Stomach and Duodenal Diseases Committee · Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · IF 5.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=440 · Aug 3, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Modified endoscopic mucosal resection versus endoscopic submucosal dissection for rectal neuroendocrine tumors ≤10 mm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

New evidencemeta-analysiscost-effectivenessESDEMR
Clinical takeawayConsider m-EMR as a reasonable first-line option for rectal NETs ≤10 mm, given comparable histologic efficacy to ESD, shorter procedure time, and lower cost, but confirm alignment with ENETS guidance.
What it foundm-EMR and ESD had equivalent histologic complete resection (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03), en bloc resection (P=0.75), and adverse events (P=0.94) for rectal NETs ≤10 mm, with m-EMR having shorter procedure time and lower cost.
ContextRefines prior uncertainty: confirms m-EMR is non-inferior to ESD for small rectal NETs, supporting a shift from more resource-intensive ESD when histologic outcomes are equivalent, but requires careful consideration of ENETS guidelines.
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.

Pang K … Wu D · Digestive and Liver Disease : Official Journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver · IF 4.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy review · Aug 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Optimal Management of Conventional Adenomas in 2026: Current and Evolving Recommendations and Ongoing Controversies.

Guideline / reviewcolonoscopypolypectomycomputer-aided detectionadenoma
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a guideline review synthesizing existing recommendations and controversies without new human evidence.
What it foundReview summarizes current guidelines and controversies in adenoma detection, resection, and surveillance, including ADR thresholds, CADe impact, and dysplasia significance.
ContextConfirms and refines current practice by integrating established guidelines with emerging evidence and debates (e.g., ADR thresholds, CADe role).
Refinessuggested 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 stakethe surveillance intervals and techniques for adenoma management

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 ↗
Thakkar B … Anderson JC · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=18,597 · Aug 1, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Artificial Intelligence Automated Assessment of Colonoscopy Quality Metrics.

New evidenceartificial intelligenceendoscopy qualitycolonoscopycomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: a validation study showing AI can measure colonoscopy quality metrics from videos, but not yet proven to improve outcomes.
What it foundAI-CQ tool correlated strongly with manual ADR (r=0.54), WT (r=0.91), and cold snare polypectomy rate (84.0%, range 63.0-95.3%).
ContextConfirms feasibility of automated quality measurement, which is currently manual and prone to documentation variability.
Emergingsuggested 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 stakeassessing colonoscopy quality metrics for post-polypectomy surveillance decisions

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.

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

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 ↗
Keswani RN … Pandolfino JE · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=262 · Aug 4, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Thirty-day Mortality Among Jehovah's Witness Patients with Gastrointestinal Bleeding Who Decline Blood Transfusion: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

New evidence
Clinical takeawayConsider bloodless management strategies (e.g., anemia-directed therapy, bloodless medicine consultation) for JW patients with GIB, as outcomes were similar despite lower discharge hemoglobin levels (median nadir 6.6 g/dL in both groups). No change in transfusion thresholds is supported by this study.
What it found30-day mortality did not differ significantly between Jehovah's Witness (JW) patients with GIB who declined blood transfusion and matched non-JW controls (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.30-1.47; p = 0.327).
ContextChallenges prior assumptions that transfusion refusal in GIB worsens mortality; confirms feasibility of bloodless management but with higher intermediate care utilization (OR 3.41 for JW patients).
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, "Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Endoscopic Management of Nonvariceal Nonpeptic Ulcer Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding" (Barkun AN et al.), Gastroenterology, 2025

Decision at stakerestrictive RBC transfusion at a threshold of hemoglobin 7 g/dL

Peri-procedural care: restrictive RBC transfusion at a threshold of hemoglobin 7 g/dL (conditional, low-quality) [#2]; erythromycin infusion (250 mg IV) before endoscopy (conditional, very-low-quality) [#3]; no recommendation for or against pre-endoscopic PPI [#4]; endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation for patients admitted or under observation (conditional, very-low-quality) [#5], the 2021 panel explicitly DECLINED to carry forward the 2012 ACG suggestion that endoscopy within 12 hours 'may be considered' in high-risk patients, and an RCT of endoscopy <6 h vs 6-24 h after consultation in patients with GBS ≥12 showed no reduction in further bleeding or mortality; resuscitation and attention to active comorbidities should be undertaken before endoscopy.

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

ACG 2021 (statement numbers are the guideline's own): Endoscopic therapy is RECOMMENDED for UGIB due to ulcers with active spurting, active oozing, or a nonbleeding visible vessel (strong, moderate-quality) [#6]. For ulcers with an adherent clot resistant to vigorous irrigation the panel COULD NOT REACH a recommendation for or against endoscopic therapy [#7]. Recommended hemostatic modalities are bipolar electrocoagulation, heater probe, or injection of absolute ethanol (strong, moderate-quality) [#8]; clips, argon plasma coagulation, and soft monopolar electrocoagulation are only SUGGESTED (conditional, very-low- to low-quality) [#9]. Epinephrine injection must NOT be used alone, but in combination with another hemostatic modality (strong, very-low- to moderate-quality) [#10], note the guideline does not require that epinephrine be part of therapy; the three strongly recommended modalities are effective as monotherapy. TC-325 hemostatic powder spray is suggested for actively bleeding ulcers (conditional, very-low-quality) [#11]. Over-the-scope clips are suggested for RECURRENT ulcer bleeding after previous successful endoscopic hemostasis (conditional, low-quality) [#12]. After successful endoscopic hemostasis, high-dose PPI given continuously OR intermittently for 3 days is recommended (strong, moderate- to high-quality) [#13]; high-risk patients then continue twice-daily PPI until 2 weeks after the index endoscopy (conditional, low-quality) [#14]. Peri-procedural care: restrictive RBC transfusion at a threshold of hemoglobin 7 g/dL (conditional, low-quality) [#2]; erythromycin infusion (250 mg IV) before endoscopy (conditional, very-low-quality) [#3]; no recommendation for or against pre-endoscopic PPI [#4]; endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation for patients admitted or under observation (conditional, very-low-quality) [#5], the 2021 panel explicitly DECLINED to carry forward the 2012 ACG suggestion that endoscopy within 12 hours 'may be considered' in high-risk patients, and an RCT of endoscopy <6 h vs 6-24 h after consultation in patients with GBS ≥12 showed no reduction in further bleeding or mortality; resuscitation and attention to active comorbidities should be undertaken before endoscopy. Rebleeding pathway is ordered: recurrent bleeding after endoscopic therapy → REPEAT endoscopy with endoscopic therapy rather than surgery or transcatheter arterial embolization (conditional, low-quality) [#15]; only if endoscopic therapy FAILS → transcatheter arterial embolization (conditional, very-low-quality) [#16]. Very-low-risk patients (Glasgow-Blatchford score 0-1) may be discharged from the ED with outpatient follow-up (conditional, very-low-quality) [#1]. For nonpeptic-ulcer causes, the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology (CAG) Clinical Practice Guideline for the Endoscopic Management of Nonvariceal Nonpeptic Ulcer Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding (Barkun AN et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(5); DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.04.041; ASGE/ESGE/SIED/WEO- and AGA-endorsed) (all recommendations conditional, very low certainty): active bleeding malignant UGI tumors, conventional hemostatic therapy over none [1A], topical hemostatic agents (THAs) over none [1B], no recommendation among conventional modalities [2], THAs suggested OVER conventional hemostatic therapy [3], oncologic therapy after endoscopic hemostasis [4]; Mallory-Weiss tears, hemostatic therapy for ACTIVE bleeding (spurting/oozing) over none [5], EBL or through-the-scope clip over epinephrine injection alone [6A/6B], and suggested AGAINST endoscopic hemostatic therapy for MWTs with nonbleeding visible vessels [7A], nonbleeding adherent clots [7B], or nonbleeding clean-based ulcers/flat pigmented spots [7C]; Dieulafoy lesions, EBL or TTSC (each ± epinephrine), or contact thermal devices ± epinephrine, or sclerosant injection ± epinephrine [8A/8B/8D], no recommendation on cap-mounted clips [8C], suggested against epinephrine injection alone versus mechanical [9A] or thermal [9B] devices; GAVE, suggested against RFA relative to APC [10], and EBL suggested over APC [11].

Canadian Association of Gastroenterology, "Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Clinical Practice Guideline for the Endoscopic Management of Nonvariceal Nonpeptic Ulcer Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding" (Barkun AN et al.), Gastroenterology, 2025 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Abujaber B … Meighani A · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=40 · Aug 3, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

Cold snare polypectomy for 5-9mm small-bowel polyps in patients with Peutz-Jeghers syndrome by double-balloon enteroscopy: a prospective clinical trial.

New evidencepolypectomyendoscopy qualitypediatriccapsule endoscopy
Clinical takeawayConsider CSP for 5-9mm stubby/wide pedicle or sessile small-bowel polyps in PJS patients aged 8-60 years during double-balloon enteroscopy, as it is feasible and safe with low bleeding risk, though larger polyps (8mm) carry higher bleeding risk.
What it foundCold snare polypectomy (CSP) for 5-9mm small-bowel polyps in Peutz-Jeghers syndrome (PJS) had a 5.9% immediate bleeding rate, with bleeding polyps significantly larger (8mm vs 6mm, P < 0.001). No perforation or delayed bleeding occurred.
ContextProspective trial confirms CSP as a viable option for small-bowel polyps in PJS, with complication rates lower than historical reports of hot snare or other techniques (no direct comparison in this 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.

Zeng S … Zuo XL · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · 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 №5 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS