A SiftingSignal publication/ Edited by Simon Mathews, MD

The week in GI, filtered to what is worth knowing.

Every week, 100+ papers from 25+ top GI and medical journals, transparently scored and physician-vetted. The signal, not the noise.

This week, in numbers

Issue №13 · week of Sep 27, 2026See the trends →
Top journals this week: Lancet / JAMA / J Hepatology / Lancet GH
Selectivity
10.5%
18 in the issue of 171 screened
in the issue 18in depth 32held 11filtered out 110
89.5% of what published this week did not make the issue. That filter is the product. A further 32 cleared the bar and are carried in one line each, in full on the subspecialty pages.
How this week moves the standard
Changes practice 0
No paper this week forces an outright change to the standard. That is the usual, honest result.
Each paper is matched to the guideline that governs its question, then placed by how it moves it. 13 of the 18 cards in the issue are matched to a standard, and each of those quotes it with its source and review date. Click a segment to filter the issue.
The signal map
647177narrative reviewguideline →Clinical utilityEvidence strength
Each dot is a paper: evidence strength across, clinical utility up (what you can do with it, what rides on it, how many patients, how new), area = the journal's impact factor, colour = subspecialty. A dark ring marks a paper that refines or changes its standard of care. The vertical scale spans this week's cards and its numbers are the real scores out of 100. Click a dot to open its card.

What to know this week

the top-scored · the 5-minute version

FMT fails to beat placebo for IBS in phase 3 RCT (40% vs 38% response), closer surveillance needed for patients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy, and counsel MASLD patients to reduce stress and improve health behaviors to cut mortality risk.

The 18 in the issue this week, ranked by signal score. Each anchored to the relevant standard of care. All in full below; 32 more, read and scored the same way, in one line each at the foot of the issue.

Your subspecialty, the takeaways
IBD9Hepatology15Esophagus/Reflux2Pancreas/Biliary4Endoscopy8Motility6Colorectal6
Type

This week to know

the 5 strongest this week · each scored 0 to 100 on what it lets you do, who it touches, the stakes, and how well the evidence backs it
Motility rct · n=150 · Sep 24, 2026 · Lancet · IF 98.4

Faecal microbiota transplantation in irritable bowel syndrome (REFIT2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

New evidencemicrobiomeIBS
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: FMT did not outperform placebo for IBS symptoms in this RCT. Do not offer FMT for IBS outside clinical trials.
What it found40% of IBS patients receiving donor FMT vs 38% receiving placebo achieved ≥75-point IBS-SSS improvement at 90 days (absolute difference 2%, 95% CI -8 to 12).
ContextChallenges prior observational data suggesting FMT benefit in IBS; first high-quality RCT shows no meaningful effect over placebo.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome', 2021

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

Diagnosis: use a positive diagnostic strategy based on Rome IV criteria rather than a strategy of exclusion (strong for cost-effectiveness, high quality; consensus for time-to-therapy), and categorize by IBS subtype (consensus). In patients with IBS and diarrhea symptoms: check celiac serology (strong, moderate) and, in those WITHOUT alarm features, fecal calprotectin (or fecal lactoferrin) plus CRP to rule out IBD (strong; moderate quality for CRP/calprotectin, very low for lactoferrin). Recommend AGAINST routine stool testing for enteric pathogens (conditional, low) and AGAINST routine colonoscopy in patients younger than 45 without warning signs (conditional, low). Anorectal physiology testing only when symptoms suggest a pelvic floor disorder and/or for refractory constipation not responding to standard medical therapy (consensus). Treatment, all subtypes: soluble, not insoluble, fiber (strong, moderate); a LIMITED trial of a low-FODMAP diet (conditional, very low); gut-directed psychotherapies for global symptoms (conditional, very low); TCAs for global symptoms (strong, moderate); peppermint suggested (conditional, low); antispasmodics for abdominal pain (conditional, low); AGAINST probiotics (conditional, very low), AGAINST fecal transplant (strong, very low). IBS-C: chloride channel activators (strong, moderate) and guanylate cyclase activators (strong, high); AGAINST PEG products for global IBS-C symptoms (conditional, low); tegaserod reserved for women younger than 65 with ≤1 cardiovascular risk factor who have not adequately responded to secretagogues (strong/conditional, low). IBS-D: rifaximin (strong, moderate); alosetron only for women with severe IBS-D who have failed conventional therapy (conditional, low); mixed opioid agonists/antagonists, i.e. eluxadoline (conditional, moderate); AGAINST bile acid sequestrants (conditional, very low).

American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline: Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome', 2021 · reviewed 2026-07-21 ↗
Johnsen PH … Goll R · The Lancet · IF 98.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal prospective cohort · n=1,021 · Sep 21, 2026 · Clin Transl Gastro · IF 3.4

Association between index adenomas and advanced neoplasia at third surveillance colonoscopy: Data from the New Hampshire Colonoscopy Registry.

New evidencecolorectal cancer screeningadenomacolorectal cancerepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider closer surveillance intervals for patients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy, as they remain at significantly higher risk of advanced neoplasia even after two normal or low-risk surveillance exams.
What it foundPatients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy had a 3.96-fold higher risk of advanced neoplasia at third surveillance compared to those with no adenomas (95% CI: 1.96-7.98).
ContextThis study addresses a gap in USMTSF guidelines, which lack recommendations for third surveillance colonoscopy in patients with index adenomas. It confirms that advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy predict long-term risk.
Measured against the standard of care· USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement)

Decision at stakethe surveillance interval for patients with advanced adenomas on index colonoscopy

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 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 an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. …

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

Our full summary of this standard

General post-polypectomy surveillance still follows USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al.), which has not been replaced: 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 an adenoma with tubulovillous/villous histology or high-grade dysplasia, 3 years; >10 adenomas, 1 year with polyposis evaluation. For serrated polyps: 1-2 SSLs <10 mm, 5-10 years; 3-4 SSLs <10 mm or a hyperplastic polyp ≥10 mm, 3-5 years; an SSL ≥10 mm, an SSL with dysplasia, or a traditional serrated adenoma, 3 years. When findings are mixed, use the shortest interval indicated. Before applying an interval, confirm complete resection and adequate prep. Piecemeal resections get a site check, and malignant (T1) polyps go to a tumor-board pathway. Serrated polyposis syndrome (SPS) is now governed by a separate USMSTF consensus statement (Rex et al., published simultaneously in Gastroenterology, Am J Gastroenterol and GIE on 2026-09-30). It has 11 recommendations. Diagnose SPS with the 2019 WHO criteria, which count the size, cumulative lifetime number and location of serrated polyps. Until SPS is diagnosed, record the number, size and location of serrated polyps in every colonoscopy report. SPS colonoscopy should be done by endoscopists with documented adequate SSL detection, using high-definition white light with or without chromoendoscopy. Without concurrent CRC, endoscopy is preferred over surgery for primary management. If the polyp burden cannot be managed endoscopically, refer to an advanced endoscopic resection expert before surgery. Resect SSLs and hyperplastic polyps by cold snare, with submucosal injection for larger lesions. Do clearance colonoscopy at 3-6 months, then surveil every 1-2 years. Consider 3-year intervals if the burden is greatly reduced at surveillance. First-degree relatives start colonoscopy at age 40, or 10 years before the youngest CRC diagnosis in the family, or 5 years before the youngest SPS diagnosis, whichever comes first. SPS has no established genetic basis, so germline testing is recommended only when concurrent non-serrated polyps suggest a heritable syndrome. Lynch, FAP/AFAP and MAP criteria still trigger genetic evaluation.

USMSTF 2020 (Gupta et al., post-polypectomy surveillance) / USMSTF 2026 (Rex et al., Serrated Polyposis Syndrome consensus statement) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Anderson J … Butterly LF · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=9,761 · Sep 23, 2026 · Eur J Gastro Hep · IF 2.2

Allostatic load, unhealthy behaviors, and mortality risk among participants with and without metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease.

New evidenceepidemiologyMASLDbiomarkerhealth services
Clinical takeawayCounsel MASLD patients on reducing chronic stress and improving health behaviors (diet, nicotine exposure, physical activity, sleep) to lower mortality risk, particularly emphasizing the combined impact of these factors.
What it foundHigh allostatic load plus poor health behaviors raised all-cause mortality risk 3.33-fold (95% CI 1.97-5.65) and cardiovascular mortality risk 3.66-fold (95% CI 1.31-10.23) in MASLD patients compared to those with low allostatic load and good health behaviors.
ContextConfirms and quantifies the independent and joint impact of chronic stress and health behaviors on mortality in MASLD, extending prior associations to specific risk levels, with particular significance for MASLD patients.
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakelifestyle modification remains the foundation for all MASLD patients

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

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

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Hong D … Fu B · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 2.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD retrospective · n=150 · Sep 22, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Janus Kinase Inhibitors for Acute Severe Ulcerative Colitis: Comparing Upadacitinib to Tofacitinib and Rescue to Sequential Salvage therapy.

New evidenceulcerative colitisJAK inhibitorsbiologicstherapeutic drug monitoring
Clinical takeawayConsider upadacitinib over tofacitinib for acute severe UC rescue therapy in adults, given its lower colectomy risk at 1 year and reassuring safety profile.
What it foundUpadacitinib reduced 52-week colectomy rates to 23.4% vs 42.5% with tofacitinib in acute severe UC (p=0.022), with no significant difference in earlier timepoints. Sequential salvage therapy had a numerically higher colectomy rate (38%) vs rescue therapy (30%, p=0.239).
ContextChallenges current equipoise between JAK inhibitors in ASUC, providing the first comparative efficacy data favoring upadacitinib.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026)

Decision at stakethe use of JAK inhibitors for acute severe ulcerative colitis

… Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. … Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. …

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

Our full summary of this standard

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. Confirm UC with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step C. difficile testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA chosen by route and extent: suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided disease, oral plus rectal for extensive disease. If 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by efficacy tier, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. Intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab. Lower: adalimumab. Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. Lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod. After anti-TNF primary non-response, switch mechanism rather than cycling within the class. Treat to target (STRIDE-II): endoscopic improvement, Mayo endoscopic subscore 0-1. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after diagnosis for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening. Inpatient care now follows the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (13 best-practice statements). Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. Give every patient admitted with diarrhea two-step C. difficile testing. Test for CMV, with early endoscopy, if symptoms worsen, the patient is systemically toxic or disease is steroid-refractory. Give routine VTE prophylaxis with LMWH or fondaparinux unless contraindicated, and individualize post-discharge extension. Give IV methylprednisolone 60 mg/day or equivalent; the AGA living guideline says 40-60 mg/day, and higher doses add no benefit. Do not give adjunctive antibiotics without infection. Involve surgery early. Assess response by day 3 (72 h) using stool frequency and CRP (Oxford criteria); do not continue IV steroids beyond about 7 days without response. Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. Before discharge, the response should be stable and a transition plan should be in place.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
R G … Yk A · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=1,007 · Sep 25, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

Altered cognition and patient-reported outcomes predict 1-year hospitalization risk in a multi-center outpatient cirrhosis cohort.

New evidencecirrhosishepatic encephalopathyepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider incorporating Stroop testing (time-based cognitive assessment) and SF-36 general health subscale assessment into routine outpatient monitoring for cirrhosis patients with controlled etiology (median MELD 11) to improve hospitalization risk prediction.
What it foundHigher Stroop time (slower performance) and lower SF-36 general health score independently predicted all-cause (Stroop/SF-36, p<0.001 each), liver-related (Stroop, p=0.01; SF-36, p<0.001), and HE-related (Stroop/SF-36, p=0.02 each) hospitalizations in cirrhosis patients, adding predictive value beyond traditional risk factors (all C-index improvements p<0.001).
ContextThis study refines risk stratification in cirrhosis by demonstrating that PROs (SF-36) and cognitive testing (Stroop) add predictive value beyond traditional clinical parameters in a multicenter outpatient cohort.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211.

Decision at stakeassessing hospitalization risk in outpatient cirrhosis management

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

Scope: this primary document covers portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis ONLY. Everything else in the current entry (HCC surveillance, transplant referral, nutrition, vaccination, ascites/SBP/HE/HRS/ACLF management) belongs to the separate documents listed as supporting sources and must not be attributed to this guidance. Risk-stratify compensated advanced chronic liver disease (cACLD) with non-invasive tests before defaulting to endoscopy. By vibration-controlled transient elastography, liver stiffness (LSM) under 10 kPa excludes cACLD, 10 to 14.9 kPa is suggestive and warrants further testing, and 15 kPa or above rules cACLD in. Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, i.e. HVPG above 10 mm Hg) is ruled in non-invasively by LSM at or above 25 kPa alone, or LSM 20 to 24.9 kPa with platelets below 150 x 10^9/L, or LSM 15 to 19.9 kPa with platelets below 110 x 10^9/L. Where spleen stiffness measurement is available, values below 21 kPa argue against CSPH and above 50 kPa argue for it. These non-invasive cutoffs are conditional probability thresholds, not universal diagnostic rules, and hold only when their derivation conditions are met. They were established in compensated advanced chronic liver disease of viral (treated or untreated HBV/HCV), alcohol-related, or non-obese (BMI under 30) MASLD etiology, and are not validated for and should not be applied to cholestatic (e.g. PBC, PSC), vascular, or other etiologies, in which different cutoffs apply. They also require a technically reliable liver stiffness measurement by vibration-controlled transient elastography, fasting, at least 10 valid acquisitions, and an IQR/median ratio below 30 percent, and are confounded by factors that raise liver stiffness independently of fibrosis, including ALT flares or acute hepatitis, extrahepatic cholestasis, hepatic congestion (right heart failure), and recent food intake; Baveno VII recommends confirming an LSM-based rule-in on a repeat measurement obtained on a separate day. The spleen stiffness cutoffs apply only to a dedicated 100 Hz spleen module, carry a higher technical failure rate, are machine-dependent, and are not interchangeable with values obtained using the standard 50 Hz liver probe. Where these population or acquisition conditions are not met, the numeric thresholds do not reliably classify CSPH, and HVPG measurement or endoscopy is required rather than a non-invasive determination. Preserve the gray zone: LSM 15 to 25 kPa without a qualifying platelet count is explicitly indeterminate (roughly 40 to 60 percent of cACLD patients) and calls for HVPG and/or endoscopy rather than assumption in either direction. Once CSPH is established, offer a non-selective beta-blocker, carvedilol preferred at 12.5 mg/day, to lower portal pressure and prevent FIRST decompensation, on the strength of PREDESCI. This is a treat-the-pressure strategy rather than a treat-the-varices one: because a patient already on NSBB for CSPH would not have management changed by the finding, screening endoscopy becomes unnecessary for most such patients. Screening EGD is still indicated where elastography is unavailable, technically difficult, or gives discordant results, and for patients who do not meet non-invasive criteria. Standard beta-blocker contraindications (severe asthma, advanced heart block, bradyarrhythmias) continue to apply. For varices needing treatment managed endoscopically, band ligation is repeated every 2 to 4 weeks until obliteration, with surveillance endoscopy at 6 months and annually thereafter. Gastric/cardiofundal varices are treated with cyanoacrylate injection or EUS-guided coil embolization rather than banding, with hepatology involvement. In acute variceal hemorrhage, consider preemptive (early) TIPS within 24 to 72 hours in high-risk patients: Child-Turcotte-Pugh class B with score above 7 and active bleeding at endoscopy despite vasoactive therapy, or CTP class C with score 10 to 13. Keep the document's own qualifier: there is no established universal MELD or CTP cutoff at which TIPS is mandatory, and the decision is case-by-case with hepatology consultation. Statin use in compensated cirrhosis is NOT a recommendation traceable to this document; the current entry's statin sentence needs its own source or removal. Verification note: the Hepatology full text is paywalled (402/403 on direct fetch). Document identity, title, year, volume, pages and authorship were confirmed via Crossref and PubMed metadata; the numeric thresholds above were corroborated from two independent peer-reviewed commentaries on this specific guidance and match the Baveno VII rule-of-five, but were not read verbatim from the primary PDF. A human should confirm the exact guidance-statement wording against the full text before this entry is treated as quotation-grade.

American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Kaplan DE, Ripoll C, Thiele M, et al. "AASLD Practice Guidance on risk stratification and management of portal hypertension and varices in cirrhosis." Hepatology. 2024;79(5):1180-1211. · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Bajaj JS … Reddy KR · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink

The read

the next 13, in full

IBD· 3

IBD review · Sep 25, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Biologics, small molecules, and extraintestinal malignancies in inflammatory bowel disease: practical questions and evidence-based answers.

New evidencebiologicsanti-TNFvedolizumabustekinumab
Clinical takeawayReassure patients on anti-TNF monotherapy about malignancy risk but avoid thiopurine combos due to lymphoma risk. In patients with cancer history, vedolizumab/ustekinumab are preferred; defer JAK/S1P modulators in older/high-risk patients. Individualize decisions in active/recent cancer with multidisciplinary input.
What it foundAnti-TNF monotherapy does not increase malignancy risk vs untreated IBD, but lymphoma and melanoma risk remains uncertain with concomitant thiopurines (clear excess lymphoma risk). Vedolizumab/ustekinumab show favorable profiles; JAK inhibitors/S1P modulators lack safety data in high-risk groups.
ContextConfirms anti-TNF monotherapy safety but highlights thiopurine-associated lymphoma risk. Supports vedolizumab/ustekinumab in cancer history patients but flags limited evidence for JAK/S1P modulators in high-risk populations.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakethe safety of advanced therapies in IBD patients with malignancy risk or history

… Prior advanced-therapy (especially anti-TNF) exposure: suggest higher- or intermediate-efficacy agents (adalimumab, risankizumab, guselkumab, upadacitinib; ustekinumab, mirikizumab) over lower-efficacy ones (vedolizumab, certolizumab pegol). … SUGGEST upfront advanced therapy over step-up therapy (corticosteroids and/or immunomodulator first). …

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

Our full summary of this standard

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

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Gisbert JP, Chaparro M · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD prospective cohort · n=251 · Sep 23, 2026 · Inflamm Bowel Dis · IF 4.5

Comparative effectiveness of infliximab vs vedolizumab as first-line biologic therapy in moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis: A prospective, multicenter, real-world study.

New evidenceulcerative colitisbiologicsvedolizumabanti-TNF
Clinical takeawayConsider vedolizumab as a first-line biologic agent for biologic-naïve patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis, given its superior short- and long-term effectiveness over infliximab with comparable safety.
What it foundVedolizumab-first therapy achieved higher composite clinical and endoscopic remission at 14 weeks (60.18% vs 39.52%) and maintained superiority in clinical remission (78.39% vs 57.38%) and endoscopic remission (66.03% vs 51.12%) at 52 weeks compared to infliximab-first therapy.
ContextThis real-world study supports vedolizumab as a higher-efficacy option (per SOC) for biologic-naïve patients, demonstrating superior effectiveness over infliximab in achieving and maintaining remission.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026)

Decision at stakepositioning vedolizumab versus infliximab as first-line advanced therapy in biologic-naive moderate-to-severe UC

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. … Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. …

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

Our full summary of this standard

Outpatient positioning is unchanged from the ACG 2025 UC guideline and the AGA living guideline for moderate-to-severe UC. Confirm UC with endoscopy showing continuous colonic inflammation from the rectum plus histology, after excluding infection with two-step C. difficile testing. Treat mild-moderate disease with 5-ASA chosen by route and extent: suppository for proctitis, enema for left-sided disease, oral plus rectal for extensive disease. If 5-ASA fails, treat as moderate-to-severe rather than stepping up gradually. Position advanced therapy by efficacy tier, not by an anti-TNF-first rule. Advanced-therapy-naive, higher efficacy: infliximab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod, upadacitinib, risankizumab, guselkumab. Intermediate: golimumab, ustekinumab, tofacitinib, filgotinib, mirikizumab. Lower: adalimumab. Previously TNF-exposed, higher efficacy: tofacitinib, upadacitinib, ustekinumab. Lower: adalimumab, vedolizumab, ozanimod, etrasimod. After anti-TNF primary non-response, switch mechanism rather than cycling within the class. Treat to target (STRIDE-II): endoscopic improvement, Mayo endoscopic subscore 0-1. Begin CRC surveillance 8-10 years after diagnosis for extensive or left-sided disease; isolated proctitis follows average-risk screening. Inpatient care now follows the 2026 AGA Clinical Practice Update (13 best-practice statements). Admit for severe symptoms refractory to outpatient therapy, suspected complications (obstruction, abscess, toxic megacolon) or significant malnutrition, and identify acute severe UC by Truelove-Witts. Give every patient admitted with diarrhea two-step C. difficile testing. Test for CMV, with early endoscopy, if symptoms worsen, the patient is systemically toxic or disease is steroid-refractory. Give routine VTE prophylaxis with LMWH or fondaparinux unless contraindicated, and individualize post-discharge extension. Give IV methylprednisolone 60 mg/day or equivalent; the AGA living guideline says 40-60 mg/day, and higher doses add no benefit. Do not give adjunctive antibiotics without infection. Involve surgery early. Assess response by day 3 (72 h) using stool frequency and CRP (Oxford criteria); do not continue IV steroids beyond about 7 days without response. Rescue steroid non-responders with infliximab (accelerated or intensified dosing in selected patients with high inflammatory burden or protein-losing colopathy), cyclosporine, or a JAK inhibitor at standard or intensified dosing, or with colectomy. Before discharge, the response should be stable and a transition plan should be in place.

AGA Clinical Practice Update on Inpatient Management of Adults With IBD (Gastroenterology 2026) / ACG UC Guideline Update 2025 / AGA Living Guideline, Moderate-to-Severe UC 2024 (panel review March 2026) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
He D … Chen M · Inflammatory Bowel Diseases · IF 4.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
IBD retrospective · n=26,976 · Sep 24, 2026 · Aliment Pharm Ther · IF 6.7

Pathogen-Specific Bloodstream Infections Associated With Tumour Necrosis Factor-α Inhibitors, Vedolizumab and Ustekinumab in Inflammatory Bowel Disease: A Danish Nationwide Case-Control Study 2010-2024.

New evidencebiologicsanti-TNFvedolizumabustekinumab
Clinical takeawayconsider vedolizumab or ustekinumab over TNF inhibitors in patients with high infection risk, especially those requiring concomitant glucocorticoids
What it foundTNFi use in IBD was associated with a 73% higher rate of bloodstream infections (BSI) (aIRR 1.73, 95% CI 1.49-2.00) compared to no biologic use, with higher rates of E. coli and S. aureus BSIs. Vedolizumab (aIRR 0.85, 95% CI 0.61-1.20) and ustekinumab (aIRR 0.68, 95% CI 0.38-1.23) were not associated with increased BSI risk overall, though vedolizumab was linked to higher E. faecium BSI rates. Concomitant glucocorticoids further increased BSI risk.
ContextNationwide registry study confirming TNFi-associated BSI risk while providing comparative safety data for vedolizumab and ustekinumab in IBD patients.
Measured against the standard of care· ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH)

Decision at stakethe choice of biologic therapy in moderate to severe Crohn's disease

… DIAGNOSIS: fecal calprotectin (>50-100 μg/g) separates inflammatory from noninflammatory disease of the colon. Workup is ileocolonoscopy with biopsies, including uninvolved mucosa, plus small-bowel imaging. CTE and MRE are comparable; prefer MRE in patients <35 y and when serial exams are likely. Intestinal ultrasound is an ungraded adjunct. Do routine CRC surveillance in Crohn's colitis. …

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 MILD-TO-MODERATE.

Our full summary of this standard

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

ACG 2025 (Lichtenstein et al., Am J Gastroenterol) / AGA Living Guideline 2025 (Scott et al., Gastroenterology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update on Therapeutic Endoscopy in IBD 2026 (CGH) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Leding C … Benfield T · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · IF 6.7 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Hepatology· 3

Hepatology review · Sep 22, 2026 · Clin Gastro Hep · IF 16.2

AGA Clinical Practice Update on the Evaluation and Management of Metabolic Dysfunction- and Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease: Expert Review.

Guideline / reviewalcohol-associated liver diseaseMASLDguideline
Clinical takeawayClassify patients with steatotic liver disease into MASLD, MetALD, or alcohol-associated liver disease using alcohol consumption thresholds and cardiometabolic risk factors. Advise all patients with MetALD to discontinue alcohol use, acknowledging potential periods of reduction or intermittent use. Implement a tiered, noninvasive strategy for fibrosis assessment.
What it foundMetALD is defined by alcohol consumption thresholds of ≈140-350 g/wk in women and 210-420 g/wk in men, alongside cardiometabolic risk factors. All patients with steatotic liver disease should be assessed initially and at least annually for alcohol use via patient interview, validated questionnaires, and/or serum/urine biomarkers.
ContextRefines the classification and management of steatotic liver disease, introducing specific alcohol consumption thresholds for MetALD, emphasizing alcohol cessation, and detailing a tiered noninvasive approach for fibrosis assessment.
Measured against the standard of care· EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798)

Decision at stakethe classification and management of patients with MetALD

This standard applies to MASLD: hepatic steatosis on imaging or biopsy, at least one cardiometabolic criterion, no other liver disease, and alcohol below the MetALD range. The AGA 2026 MetALD update sets MetALD at about 140-350 g/week of alcohol in women and 210-420 g/week in men, averaged over at least 3 months. MASLD therefore means under about 140 g/week (women) or 210 g/week (men), and drinking above the MetALD range is ALD. …

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

Our full summary of this standard

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

EASL-EASD-EASO 2026 Guidance on Resmetirom and Semaglutide as MASH-Targeted Therapy (J Hepatol, doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2026.08.028) / AASLD 2023 Practice Guidance (+ Oct 2024 resmetirom and Nov 2025 semaglutide updates) / AGA 2026 Clinical Care Pathway for MASLD (Gastroenterology, doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2026.01.047) / AGA 2026 Clinical Practice Update on MetALD (Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2026) / EASL 2026 SLD trajectory guidance (JHEP Rep, doi:10.1016/j.jhepr.2026.101798) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Arab JP … Fontana RJ · Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology : the Official Clinical Practice Journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · IF 16.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology prospective cohort · n=4,192 · Sep 22, 2026 · Clin Transl Gastro · IF 3.4

Validation of a machine learning model to non-invasively exclude spontaneous bacterial peritonitis.

New evidenceartificial intelligencebiomarker
Clinical takeawayConsider using this ML model as an adjunctive tool to non-invasively exclude SBP in cirrhotic VA patients with ascites, particularly in resource-limited settings, but do not replace guideline-mandated paracentesis when indicated.
What it foundA machine learning model excluded SBP with negative predictive values of 93.6%, 92.0%, and 90.9% at <5%, <10%, and <15% probability thresholds in a national VA cohort, and 100%, 97.5%, and 95.4% in a manual confirmation subgroup.
ContextThis validates a previously developed ML model in a contemporary VA cohort post-2020, confirming its utility in post-COVID-19 healthcare settings.
Measured against the standard of care· AASLD 2021 Practice Guidance (Biggins et al., Hepatology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update 2025 (Orman et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1547-1557)

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

Perform a diagnostic paracentesis as soon as possible in any patient with new-onset ascites that can be sampled. Also perform one in any patient with cirrhosis and ascites who is admitted to hospital. AASLD 2021 says this applies to emergent admission for any reason. AGA 2025 BPA 2 names admission for ascites- or encephalopathy-related symptoms. The tap rules out SBP even without signs of infection, because up to one-third of SBP is asymptomatic. Repeat it whenever signs, symptoms or labs suggest infection, and in tense ascites with AKI. Paracentesis is safe with coagulopathy: INR >1.5 or platelets <50×10^9/L is not a contraindication, and routine FFP or platelet transfusion is not recommended. Possible exceptions are DIC, and uremia with thrombocytopenia, where desmopressin may be considered. Initial fluid testing: neutrophil (PMN) count, total protein, and ascitic albumin with a same-day serum albumin to calculate the SAAG. AGA 2025 adds Gram stain and culture to the initial panel for new-onset ascites and hospitalized patients. AASLD 2021 treats culture as part of the SBP workup rather than the routine panel. Either way, inoculate ≥10 mL into aerobic and anaerobic blood-culture bottles at the bedside before antibiotics. Amylase, cytology, glucose, LDH, AFB/ADA and triglycerides are ordered only for a clinical reason. SAAG ≥1.1 g/dL means portal hypertension (~97% accuracy). SAAG <1.1 g/dL points to a non-portal-hypertensive cause: carcinomatosis, TB peritonitis, nephrotic syndrome, pancreatic or chylous ascites. Within high-SAAG ascites, total protein <2.5 g/dL suggests cirrhosis (also massive liver metastases or late Budd-Chiari). Total protein ≥2.5 g/dL suggests a cardiac or postsinusoidal cause (heart failure, portal vein thrombosis, SOS, early Budd-Chiari), so work up with echocardiography, hepatic-vein Doppler or right-heart catheterization. SBP is diagnosed by ascitic PMN >250/mm^3, with or without a positive culture, once a surgically treatable source has been excluded. SBE is diagnosed by pleural fluid PMN >250/mm^3 in a hepatic hydrothorax after pneumonia and other secondary causes are excluded. It is treated with antibiotics and no chest tube.

AASLD 2021 Practice Guidance (Biggins et al., Hepatology) / AGA Clinical Practice Update 2025 (Orman et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169(7):1547-1557) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Tsai SY … Bajaj JS · Clinical and Translational Gastroenterology · IF 3.4 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Hepatology review · Sep 21, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Translational Hepatology From Bedside to Global Policy: How Robust Clinical and Translational Research Reshapes Global Practice Guidelines and Patient Outcomes.

New therapytranslationalguidelinecost-effectivenessviral hepatitis
Clinical takeawayConsider STRIDE regimen as frontline dual immunotherapy for HBV-predominant unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, particularly in cirrhotic patients with portal hypertension, as it establishes a VEGF-free standard.
What it foundSTRIDE regimen (single-dose tremelimumab plus regular durvalumab) improved median overall survival to 25.26 vs. 14.09 months (compared to standard therapy) in HBV-predominant unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.
ContextThis confirms and extends prior evidence supporting dual immunotherapy in HBV-predominant uHCC, establishing STRIDE as a VEGF-free standard in APASL 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.

Lau G · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Esophagus/Reflux· 1

Esophagus/Reflux guideline · Sep 25, 2026 · Gut · IF 24.6

EUropean consensus on the Resolution Of SympToms After oesophago-gastric Resection (EUROSTAR): Peri-Operative Quality Initiative (POQI) consensus statement.

Guideline / reviewguidelinehealth services
Clinical takeawayConsider adopting the EUROSTAR consensus recommendations, which provide specific diagnostic criteria, investigation pathways, and management strategies, for standardizing postoperative care in patients after major UGI cancer surgery.
What it foundA multidisciplinary panel developed 8 statements and 13 recommendations using a modified GRADE methodology for symptom monitoring, service provision, and management of postoperative conditions after major UGI cancer surgery, including specific diagnostic criteria, investigation pathways, and management strategies.
ContextThis consensus addresses the lack of standardization in postoperative care for UGI cancer surgery survivors, refining current practices and providing a structured, evidence-based approach to symptom 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.

Barman S … EUROSTAR Study Faculty Members · Gut · IF 24.6 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Pancreas/Biliary· 1

Pancreas/Biliary prospective cohort · n=3,016 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dig Liver Dis · IF 4.2

Acute cholecystopancreatitis: Diagnostic accuracy, true frequency, and clinical implications. Insights from the RELAPSTONE multicentre cohort.

New evidenceacute pancreatitischoledocholithiasisepidemiology
Clinical takeawayConsider CCP in patients presenting with both AP and ACC, as accurate classification is essential to avoid unnecessary antibiotic use and optimize timing of cholecystectomy. Note that CCP does not consistently lead to worse outcomes than isolated AP or ACC.
What it foundCholecystopancreatitis (CCP) confirmed in 3.9% of cases, representing 11.1% of acute pancreatitis (AP) and 12.3% of acute calculous cholecystitis (ACC) cases, with 65% presenting simultaneously. CCP showed slightly higher rates of organ failure but no differences in ICU admission or hospital stay compared to isolated AP or ACC.
ContextRefines understanding of CCP, showing it is relatively frequent but often misclassified, with no consistent association with worse clinical outcomes compared to isolated AP or ACC.
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 stakediagnosis and management of acute biliary pancreatitis with concurrent acute calculous cholecystitis

… 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 ↗
Velamazán R … de-Madaria E · 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· 3

Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,166 · Sep 22, 2026 · Eur J Gastro Hep · IF 2.2

Underwater versus conventional polypectomy for colorectal polyps 10 mm or smaller: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

New evidencepolypectomysystematic reviewmeta-analysisendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider underwater polypectomy for polyps ≤10 mm to reduce incomplete resection rates, particularly in settings where complete resection is critical, such as surveillance for high-risk adenomas or serrated lesions.
What it foundUnderwater polypectomy reduced incomplete resection rates to 38% of conventional polypectomy (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.56) for polyps ≤10 mm, with comparable en bloc resection rates and safety profiles.
ContextConfirms underwater polypectomy as a viable alternative to conventional polypectomy, with a specific advantage in reducing incomplete resections while maintaining comparable safety and en bloc resection rates.
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.

Amdetsion GY … Abegunde AT · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · IF 2.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=80 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

Appendoscope-Assisted Endoscopic Retrograde Appendicitis Therapy Versus Antibiotic Monotherapy for Acute Uncomplicated Appendicitis.

New evidencecost-effectiveness
Clinical takeawayConsider ERAT as an alternative to antibiotic monotherapy for AUA in patients seeking to avoid surgery, weighing lower failure/recurrence against higher costs.
What it foundIn a retrospective study of acute uncomplicated appendicitis (AUA), ERAT reduced 1-year treatment failure (12.5% vs 42.5% with antibiotics) and recurrence (10.3% vs 30.3%), with faster pain relief (6h vs 48h) and shorter hospital stays (1d vs 5d), but higher costs (10,408.6 vs 2,868.9 CNY).
ContextRetrospective single-center data challenges antibiotic monotherapy for AUA by offering a non-surgical endoscopic option with better efficacy but higher costs.
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.

Liu PC … Jing HZ · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy guideline · Sep 24, 2026 · Endoscopy · IF 11.8

Curriculum for endoscopic treatment of esophageal neoplasia and precursor lesions: ESGE Position Statement - with competency assessment tools.

Guideline / reviewguidelineendoscopy qualitycomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayEnsure endoscopists treating early esophageal neoplasia complete structured training with at least 10 supervised cases on models and maintain an annual caseload of at least 10 new cases for both endoscopic resection and ablation to sustain competency.
What it foundEndoscopists require a minimum of 10 supervised cases on ex vivo/in vivo models and an annual caseload of at least 10 new cases per endoscopist for endoscopic resection and ablation to maintain competence in early esophageal neoplasia management.
ContextRefines current practice by specifying structured training and maintenance requirements for competency in endoscopic management of early esophageal neoplasia.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)

Decision at stakethe need for structured training and competency assessment in endoscopic therapy for early esophageal neoplasia

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

WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).

National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Weusten BLAM … Tham TC · Endoscopy · IF 11.8 · PubMed ↗Permalink

Colorectal· 2

Colorectal prospective cohort · n=50 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

The THOMAS Study: A Pilot Study for Patient-Administered Anal Cancer Screening.

New evidencecolorectal cancerdysplasiahealth services
Clinical takeawayPreliminary data suggest patient-administered anal dysplasia screening may be an option for high-risk patients (HIV-positive, anoreceptive intercourse) who decline in-office testing, but emphasize its moderate accuracy and need for further validation due to study limitations.
What it foundPatient-collected anal swabs had 72.0% accuracy for detecting atypical cells and 83.7% accuracy for high-risk HPV, with moderate agreement (κ = 0.51-0.63) compared to physician-collected samples in a pilot study.
ContextPilot study (n=50) at a single institution; expands screening access for a high-risk population where office-based sampling is a barrier but generalizability is limited.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS); Stier EA, et al. "International Anal Neoplasia Society's consensus guidelines for anal cancer screening." International Journal of Cancer, 2024

Decision at stakethe feasibility and accuracy of patient-administered anal cancer screening

Offer anal cancer screening only where there is capacity to perform high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and to treat what it finds. … Screen with anal cytology alone, high-risk HPV testing alone (with HPV16 genotyping), or hrHPV-cytology co-testing, all three perform acceptably; HRA is the DIAGNOSTIC procedure for an abnormal screen, not itself a screening test. …

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

Offer anal cancer screening only where there is capacity to perform high-resolution anoscopy (HRA) and to treat what it finds. Screening is RECOMMENDED for: MSM and transgender women with HIV, beginning at age 35; all other people with HIV, and MSM and transgender women without HIV, beginning at age 45; solid organ transplant recipients, beginning 10 years post-transplant; and persons with a history of vulvar HSIL or vulvar cancer, beginning within 1 year of that diagnosis. Screening may be CONSIDERED via shared decision-making, and only where HRA capacity is adequate, for persons aged 45 or older with a history of cervical or vaginal HSIL/cancer, perianal warts, persistent (>1 year) cervical HPV16, or autoimmune conditions. Screen with anal cytology alone, high-risk HPV testing alone (with HPV16 genotyping), or hrHPV-cytology co-testing, all three perform acceptably; HRA is the DIAGNOSTIC procedure for an abnormal screen, not itself a screening test. Perform digital anal rectal examination as part of the physical exam at every screening visit. Refer immediately to HRA for any abnormal cytology, ASC-US or worse, when screening is by cytology alone, since there is no hrHPV result available to triage it; for ASC-US or worse cytology accompanied by a positive hrHPV result on co-testing; for ASC-H or HSIL cytology regardless of HPV result; and for any HPV16-positive result regardless of cytology. Repeat screening in 12 months after NILM cytology alone or a negative HPV test alone, or after ASC-US cytology with negative hrHPV; repeat in 12-24 months after co-testing that is both NILM and hrHPV-negative. Where HRA capacity is reduced, restrict immediate referral to ASC-H/HSIL cytology and to HPV16-positive results, and manage the remainder with repeat screening. Treat HSIL found at HRA-directed biopsy rather than observing it: in ANCHOR, treatment reduced progression to invasive cancer by approximately 57% in people with HIV aged 35 and older.

International Anal Neoplasia Society (IANS); Stier EA, et al. "International Anal Neoplasia Society's consensus guidelines for anal cancer screening." International Journal of Cancer, 2024 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Miyazaki NL … Ng M · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Colorectal retrospective · n=63 · Sep 23, 2026 · Dis Colon Rectum · IF 3.5

Efficacy of Preoperative Colonoscopy Following Self-Expandable Metallic Stent Placement in Patients with Obstructive Colorectal Cancer.

New evidencecolorectal cancercolorectal surgery
Clinical takeawayConsider preoperative total colonoscopy after self-expandable metallic stent placement in patients with obstructive colorectal cancer to detect synchronous cancers and optimize surgical planning, acknowledging limitations of retrospective, single-center design and use of uncovered stents only.
What it foundPreoperative total colonoscopy after self-expandable metallic stent placement detected synchronous colorectal cancer in 18.6% of patients (8 of 43), altering surgical strategy, compared to standard preoperative imaging.
ContextConfirms the utility of preoperative colonoscopy in detecting synchronous cancers, a practice not yet universally adopted in this setting, but with noted limitations.
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.

Inoue K … Higurashi T · Diseases of the Colon and Rectum · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Everything else this week32 that cleared the bar

Ranked below the cards above, not excluded: these met the bar and were read and scored the same way. One line each, grouped by subspecialty, highest signal first; click through for the paper.

Also screened this week44 papers read, not selected

These cleared the journal filter and were read, but were not selected this week. A score means the paper was weighed: below 35 it fell short of the bar; at 35 or above, a check after scoring set it aside. A blank means it was set aside before scoring. Listed for anyone going deeper; no takeaway attached, because none was written. How we choose →

Endoscopy· 15

How we choose

the same pipeline every week
01

Scan

Every new paper across 48 vetted GI, hepatology, and general-medicine journals.

02

Screen

Drop what is not a study: letters, editorials, corrections, case reports. Classify the rest.

03

Anchor

Compare each paper to the guideline standard it touches, and record how far it moves it.

04

Verify

An adversarial second pass checks every claim against its cited source.

05

Vet

Each issue is reviewed by a physician editor before it publishes.