← Issue №8/ week of Aug 23, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 8 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 8, in full

most clinically useful first · the 2 the issue led with are ruled in green
Endoscopy rct · n=606 · Aug 20, 2026 · Am J Gastro · IF 9.8

AI-assisted second forward-view examination of the right colon significantly improves the adenoma detection rate: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecolonoscopyadenomaendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayImplement AI-assisted second forward-view examination of the right colon during colonoscopy to improve adenoma detection, particularly for small, flat, and hard-to-reach lesions. This combined strategy was effective across all levels of endoscopist experience.
What it foundAI-assisted second forward-view examination of the right colon improved adenoma detection to 36.4% versus 27.9% (p = 0.03, absolute increase 8.5%), with greater detection of small, flat, and anatomically challenging lesions regardless of endoscopist experience.
ContextCombines two established detection strategies (AI assistance and reinspection) in a prospective RCT of right colon adenomas. Extends prior evidence that each approach independently improves adenoma detection by demonstrating their combined effect; the isolated contribution of the AI component versus the second-pass examination alone remains undetermined.
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 stakehow to perform colonoscopy to maximize adenoma detection in the right colon

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 ↗
Nishikawa Y … Matsuda T · American Journal of Gastroenterology · IF 9.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Aug 20, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Standardized Assessment of Complete Colorectal Polyp Resection for Polyps <20 mm (SCOPE): a Delphi Consensus.

Practice-changingpolypectomycolonoscopyendoscopy qualityadenoma
Clinical takeawayAdopt standardized resection assessment protocols in your practice: use HD white-light inspection as the primary assessment method (supplement with image-enhanced inspection for 10-19 mm polyps), document post-resection photographs for 10-19 mm polyps, ensure histopathological margin assessment for all non-fragmented and en bloc resections, and monitor your personal incomplete resection rate (IRR) for 10-19 mm polyps as a quality assurance metric.
What it foundExpert consensus among 53 international experts (18 of 20 statements achieving >80% agreement) established standardized assessment protocols for colorectal polyp resection <20 mm: HD white-light inspection for all, image-enhanced inspection for 10-19 mm, post-resection photo documentation for 10-19 mm, histopathological margin assessment for all non-fragmented and en bloc resections, and incomplete resection rate measurement via extended margin resection.
ContextIncomplete polyp resection can lead to recurrent polyps and post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer. Standardized methods for assessing resection completeness were lacking; this Delphi consensus establishes international expert agreement on optimal assessment strategies, enabling incomplete resection rate to be tracked as a measurable quality parameter.
Reinforcessuggested 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 stakeConfirm complete resection before applying a post-polypectomy surveillance interval

Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps.

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 ↗
van Bokhorst QNE … SCOPE initiative collaborators · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=255 · Aug 21, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Clinical and endoscopic features of checkpoint inhibitor-induced colitis and their association with selective immunosuppressive therapy use.

Diagnosticbiomarker
Clinical takeawayIn ICI colitis, escalation to immunosuppressive therapy is primarily determined by ICI type and clinical progression, not mucosal endoscopic appearance. Do not use IMCES (AUC 0.57) or endoscopic features (erythema, exudate) to predict escalation. Monitor for clinical worsening-progressive diarrhea especially bloody, fever, severe abdominal pain, or laboratory decline (rising CRP, falling albumin)-as signals for escalation need. ICI type carries dominant risk; ipilimumab and aCTLA-4-based therapies warrant particular vigilance. Base escalation decisions on symptom trajectory and known ICI immunobiology, not endoscopic severity scoring.
What it foundAmong 255 patients with histologically confirmed ICI colitis, 38% required selective immunosuppressive therapy escalation. ICI type was the dominant multivariable predictor (OR 12.8). Endoscopic features (erythema OR 4.09, exudate OR 3.24) and biochemical markers offered minimal additional predictive value. The Immune-Mediated Colitis Endoscopic Score (IMCES) demonstrated poor discriminative ability (AUC 0.57 overall, 0.61 for early escalation).
ContextCurrent practice often applies endoscopic severity scoring (Mayo, IMCES) to grade ICI colitis severity and inform escalation to immunosuppressive therapy. This external validation shows IMCES performs poorly (AUC 0.57, barely better than chance) and reveals that ICI type and drug immunology, rather than mucosal findings, determine escalation risk.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), "AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis and Hepatitis: Expert Review" (Dougan M, Wang Y, Rubio-Tapia A, Lim JK), Gastroenterology 2021;160(4):1384-1393

Decision at stakewhether endoscopic severity scoring helps identify ICI colitis patients who will need escalation to selective immunosuppressive therapy

In grade 2 or higher colitis/diarrhea, early stool inflammatory markers (lactoferrin, calprotectin) may help stratify patients for endoscopy, and endoscopic confirmation of the diagnosis and severity should be considered before starting high-dose systemic glucocorticoids; abdominal imaging is reserved for dominant pain, fever, or bleeding and should not be done routinely for diarrhea alone.

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 suspected ICI colitis, exclude infectious causes of diarrhea (including C. difficile) before treating. In grade 2 or higher colitis/diarrhea, early stool inflammatory markers (lactoferrin, calprotectin) may help stratify patients for endoscopy, and endoscopic confirmation of the diagnosis and severity should be considered before starting high-dose systemic glucocorticoids; abdominal imaging is reserved for dominant pain, fever, or bleeding and should not be done routinely for diarrhea alone. The AGA cautions that no validated severity index for ICI colitis exists and that symptoms correlate poorly with endoscopic, radiologic, and treatment-response severity, and that rapid progression over days can occur, particularly with ipilimumab. ICI colitis typically responds to high-dose systemic glucocorticoids at 0.5-2 mg/kg prednisone-equivalent daily tapered over 4-6 weeks (the AGA explicitly notes these doses and schedules have not been rigorously examined). If there is no improvement after 2-3 days, add infliximab or vedolizumab while continuing glucocorticoids; both are reasonable options for glucocorticoid-refractory colitis. Budesonide is ineffective as prophylaxis and is not a standard treatment for ICI colitis, it is reserved for ICI-associated microscopic colitis. Retreatment with immunotherapy is possible under select conditions. For hepatitis, obtain baseline liver chemistries (total bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, AST, ALT) and HBV serologies before ICI; grade by CTCAE and manage as follows: grade 1 (AST/ALT 1-3x ULN or bilirubin 1-1.5x ULN), monitor liver chemistries 1-2 times weekly; grade 2 (AST/ALT >3-5x ULN or bilirubin >1.5-3x ULN), hold ICI until resolution to grade 1, and if symptomatic give prednisone 0.5-1.0 mg/kg/d or equivalent; grade 3 (AST/ALT >5-20x ULN or bilirubin >3-10x ULN), discontinue ICI and start methylprednisolone 1-2 mg/kg/d or equivalent; grade 4 (AST/ALT >20x ULN or bilirubin >10x ULN or hepatic decompensation), permanently discontinue ICI and start methylprednisolone 2 mg/kg/d. For ICI hepatitis that does not adequately improve after 3-5 days of high-dose glucocorticoids, escalate to a second-line immunosuppressant, mycophenolate mofetil (with azathioprine as an accepted alternative), while continuing glucocorticoids; infliximab is not recommended for ICI hepatitis because of its potential for hepatotoxicity. Evaluate all ICI-related liver-chemistry elevations for alternate etiologies (consider liver biopsy), and obtain biliary imaging when alkaline phosphatase and/or bilirubin are elevated.

American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), "AGA Clinical Practice Update on Diagnosis and Management of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Colitis and Hepatitis: Expert Review" (Dougan M, Wang Y, Rubio-Tapia A, Lim JK), Gastroenterology 2021;160(4):1384-1393 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Naber MR … van Schaik FDM · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=57 · Aug 19, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Influence of artificial intelligence on the performance of endosonographers in detection of solid pancreatic tumors: a tandem randomized video study.

New evidenceartificial intelligencepancreatic cancerEUScomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayNo direct bedside action yet: this video-based performance study does not establish real-world EUS workflow, patient-level diagnostic confirmation, or clinical consequences of improved detection. Clinical translation requires evaluation in live EUS procedures to assess specificity, false-positive impact, and whether improved accuracy changes patient management.
What it foundAI-assisted EUS improved endosonographer detection of solid pancreatic tumors from 70.8% to 77.1% accuracy (6.3-point absolute improvement, P < 0.001), with greatest benefit for small and transient lesions; stand-alone AI achieved 92.3% accuracy.
ContextAI-assisted imaging is emerging in GI endoscopy; this extends the concept to EUS for pancreatic lesion detection, where early diagnosis carries high prognostic weight. The finding that AI benefits difficult (small, transient) lesions but not straightforward cases aligns with known human-AI collaboration patterns in imaging and suggests a complementary role.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium, Goggins M, et al. "Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium." Gut, 2020;69(1):7-17.

Decision at stakesurveillance of high-risk individuals using EUS to detect solid pancreatic tumors

The CAPS Consortium recommends pancreatic surveillance for selected high-risk individuals to detect stage I (T1N0M0, margin-negative resectable) pancreatic cancer and high-grade precursors (PanIN-3, IPMN with high-grade dysplasia); it should ideally be performed in a research setting by a multidisciplinary team at a center with appropriate expertise.

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

Our full summary of this standard

The CAPS Consortium recommends pancreatic surveillance for selected high-risk individuals to detect stage I (T1N0M0, margin-negative resectable) pancreatic cancer and high-grade precursors (PanIN-3, IPMN with high-grade dysplasia); it should ideally be performed in a research setting by a multidisciplinary team at a center with appropriate expertise. Candidate groups and their affected-relative requirements: Peutz-Jeghers/STK11 carriers regardless of family history; CDKN2A carriers regardless of family history (surveillance regardless of family history reached 77% agreement, still meeting the guideline's ≥75% consensus threshold as a Grade 1 'definitely do it' recommendation, while surveillance in those with at least one affected first-degree relative reached stronger 99% agreement); BRCA2 carriers with at least one affected FDR or at least two affected relatives of any degree; ATM, PALB2, and Lynch (MLH1/MSH2/MSH6) carriers only if at least one affected FDR; BRCA1 with an affected FDR did NOT reach consensus; hereditary pancreatitis was an area of disagreement (no consensus on whether or how to surveil); and familial pancreatic cancer kindreds, an individual with at least one affected FDR who in turn has an affected FDR, qualify on pedigree alone without an identified germline variant. Germline testing and genetic counseling should be considered for those eligible for surveillance but are not an absolute prerequisite. Start ages (exact age often did not reach consensus): CDKN2A at age 40; Peutz-Jeghers at least by age 40, or 10 years younger than the youngest affected relative; hereditary pancreatitis/PRSS1 at age 40 or 20 years after the first attack; BRCA2/ATM/PALB2/BRCA1/Lynch carriers at age 45 or 50, or 10 years younger than the youngest affected relative; familial pancreatic cancer kindreds at age 50 or 55, or 10 years younger than the youngest affected relative (experts split between 50 and 55). New-onset diabetes in a high-risk individual should trigger screening regardless of age. Modalities: both baseline and follow-up surveillance use EUS and MRI/MRCP, alternated (consensus that both are used, but NO consensus on if or how to alternate them); CT is reserved for individuals who cannot undergo MRI/EUS or when a solid lesion is detected; CA19-9 is an additional test only when imaging shows worrisome features; routine fasting glucose and/or HbA1c testing is advised. Interval: in the absence of pancreatic abnormalities, or with only low-risk findings such as pancreatic lobulation, cysts without worrisome features, or a <1 cm non-functioning neuroendocrine tumor, continue 12-monthly imaging. Concerning findings: a newly detected solid lesion of uncertain significance should be re-imaged at 3 months (3-6 months for CDKN2A carriers); EUS-FNA is indicated for solid lesions ≥5 mm, cystic lesions with worrisome features (mural nodule, solid component, duct dilation), or a main-pancreatic-duct stricture without a mass. Surgical resection, performed at a specialty center as an oncologic/radical resection, is indicated for a solid lesion (≥5 mm; resection regardless of size did not reach consensus), or an IPMN with a mural nodule, an enhancing solid component, symptoms (pancreatitis/jaundice/pain), or a main pancreatic duct ≥10 mm. Surveillance of average-risk individuals is not recommended.

International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium, Goggins M, et al. "Management of patients with increased risk for familial pancreatic cancer: updated recommendations from the International Cancer of the Pancreas Screening (CAPS) Consortium." Gut, 2020;69(1):7-17. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Montanelli J … Swanström LL · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=125 · Aug 21, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Forward- vs. Oblique-Viewing Endoscope for Duodenal Papillectomy: A Comparative Study on Efficacy and Safety.

New evidenceERCPendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayFor adenoma papillectomy, oblique-viewing endoscopy achieved higher en bloc resection rates (80% vs. 61.5%) at the cost of longer procedure time (39 vs. 21 min). However, follow-up outcomes did not differ between approaches; the clinical benefit of higher en bloc rates remains unproven. Technique (particularly avoiding submucosal injection when feasible) may influence outcomes as much as endoscope choice.
What it foundOblique-viewing endoscopy achieved higher en bloc resection (80% vs. 61.5% with forward-viewing; p=0.024), persisting after propensity score matching, but required longer procedure time (39 vs. 21 min; p=0.001). Safety and adverse events were similar. In this mixed-histology retrospective cohort, submucosal injection was identified as the only independent risk factor for piecemeal resection and may confound the endoscope comparison.
ContextAddresses a previously undefined technical choice in papillectomy. Complete en bloc resection is mechanistically favorable for minimizing recurrence risk, though follow-up outcomes in this series showed no statistically significant differences between approaches.
Reinforcessuggested 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 stakeUse of side-viewing (oblique) vs forward-viewing endoscopes for papillectomy resection

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 ↗
Guo KY … Hu H · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · Aug 18, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Hemostatic Efficacy and Safety of the Hybrid Injector ClearCoajet in Endoscopic Mucosal Resection of Large Colorectal Polyps: A Multicenter Randomized Trial.

New therapyEMRhemostasisadenoma
Clinical takeawayFor hemostasis of intraprocedural bleeding during large polyp EMR, snare-tip hemostasis remains the standard approach; ClearCoajet offers a potential alternative if available, but this underpowered trial does not demonstrate clear superiority. No change in current hemostasis practice is required based on this evidence.
What it foundHemostasis success during EMR was 96.4% with ClearCoajet available (27/28 cases) versus 84.0% with snare-tip only (21/25 cases), a 12.4 percentage point difference (95% CI -4.7 to 31.3, P = 0.176); the difference was not statistically significant.
ContextIntraprocedural bleeding complicates 24% of large polyp EMR procedures and is typically managed with snare-tip hemostasis. This trial evaluates a hybrid device combining heat probe and injector as an adjunct; the nonsignificant trend toward improved success does not establish clear advantage over established technique.
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 stakeSelection of hemostatic technique for managing intraprocedural bleeding during endoscopic mucosal resection

Confirm complete resection and adequate prep before applying an interval, and use site-check/tumor-board pathways for piecemeal resection and malignant (T1) polyps.

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 ↗
Nam Y … Lee HS · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=2,531 · Aug 20, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Antibiotic Prophylaxis for Peroral Cholangioscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

New evidencemeta-analysissystematic reviewERCP
Clinical takeawayThe evidence is too weak to change current practice in either direction. The confidence interval is wide and crosses near-equivalence, sensitivity analyses were unstable, and the authors explicitly call for prospective studies before recommendations shift. Whether you currently use prophylaxis or not, this evidence does not argue for a change. Individualize based on local practice patterns until stronger evidence emerges.
What it foundAntibiotic prophylaxis reduced post-cholangioscopy cholangitis from 7.8% to 3.0% (risk ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.22-0.95) in a meta-analysis of six studies with 2,531 patients, but the estimate was borderline significant and not robust to individual study removal; certainty of evidence was very low.
ContextAntibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP with cholangioscopy is common practice but has long lacked strong supporting evidence. This meta-analysis sought to quantify benefit but found borderline, very low certainty evidence, leaving the evidence base essentially unchanged: current practice remains unjustified by published trial data.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019

Decision at stakeWhether to give antibiotic prophylaxis before peroral cholangioscopy to prevent post-procedure cholangitis

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

For right upper quadrant pain, characterize the pattern (acute vs chronic, post-meal vs unrelated, with vs without fever/jaundice) and triage acute red-flag presentations (Murphy sign, Charcot's triad, painless jaundice with weight loss, pregnancy with LFT/coagulation derangement) to the ED. Obtain labs (CBC, CMP with LFTs, lipase, urinalysis, pregnancy test in reproductive-age women) and RUQ ultrasound as first imaging, then direct further workup by ultrasound findings, cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis, MRCP for suspected choledocholithiasis based on risk stratification (e.g., high-risk criteria including CBD dilation >6 mm, bilirubin >4 mg/dL, or gallstone pancreatitis), CCK-HIDA/GBEF for acalculous functional gallbladder disorder, and cross-sectional imaging for liver masses or other pathology.

American College of Gastroenterology, 'Diagnosis and Management of Choledocholithiasis', 2019 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Alsaleh T … George J · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=12 · Aug 21, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Self-Directed Mikoto Simulator Training for Colonoscopy in Gastroenterology Trainees: An International Multicenter Randomized Trial.

New evidencecolonoscopyendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawaySimulator training shows promise as a feasible adjunct to standard colonoscopy training. Although the trial was small (n=12 total) and did not achieve statistical significance for the between-group comparison, the simulator group demonstrated significant within-group improvement in cecal intubation rate from 60.0% to 80.0% (p=0.003) and reduction in procedure time. These findings support using simulation as an educational adjunct in training programs, though larger trials are needed to confirm the magnitude of benefit.
What it foundMikoto simulator training did not significantly improve post-training cecal intubation rate compared to standard training (80.0% vs 77.8%; OR 1.34; 95% CI 0.37-4.84; p=0.606).
ContextSimulation training is widely adopted in GI education with the expectation that it accelerates skill acquisition and improves proficiency. This randomized trial found no additive benefit of self-directed simulator training to standard colonoscopy practice, suggesting supervised hands-on training alone achieves adequate proficiency.
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.

Yamaguchi D … Esaki M · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №8 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS