← Issue №14/ week of Oct 4, 2026/ the whole section, in full

Endoscopy, in full.

All 10 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 10, in full

most clinically useful first · the 2 the issue led with are ruled in green
Endoscopy rct · n=62 · Sep 30, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Radiofrequency ablation versus hybrid argon plasma coagulation for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus: a randomized-controlled trial assessing procedural tolerability and safety (RATE study).

New evidenceBarrett's esophagusesophageal cancerdysphagia
Clinical takeawayh-APC may be an alternative to RFA for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus, as it was associated with lower postprocedural pain and stricture risk while achieving similar eradication rates. Further evidence is needed before it can be recommended over RFA.
What it foundh-APC reduced 30-day postprocedural chest pain burden to 40.5 VAS-days compared to 64.5 with RFA (P=0.010) and strictures to 3.2% compared to 19.4% (P=0.043), with similar CR-IM (71.0% vs 67.7%) and CR-D (90.3% in both).
ContextThis study suggests h-APC may offer comparable efficacy to RFA with fewer adverse effects, but it does not yet challenge the current standard of care.
Measured against the standard of care· AGA 2025 (surveillance) / ACG 2022 (diagnosis, endoscopic therapy, post-EET)

Decision at stakethe choice of ablative modality for dysplastic Barrett's esophagus

… Its 8 GRADE recommendations are: (1) endoscopic surveillance for nondysplastic BE rather than none (conditional, low certainty); (2) NO endoscopic surveillance for columnar-lined esophagus <1 cm, even with intestinal metaplasia, when there is no neoplasia (conditional); (3) high-definition white-light endoscopy PLUS chromoendoscopy over white light alone (STRONG); (4) no recommendation for or against wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as an adjunct to structured biopsy; (5) no recommendation on p53 IHC and (6) no recommendation on TissueCypher as adjuncts to histopathology in NDBE, indefinite for dysplasia (IND), or LGD; (7) daily PPI over no PPI to prevent neoplastic progression (conditional); (8) PPI over antireflux surgery to prevent progression to HGD/EAC (conditional). …

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

Surveillance practice is now defined by the AGA 2025 surveillance guideline (Wani et al., Gastroenterology 2025;169:1184-1231; endorsed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology). Its 8 GRADE recommendations are: (1) endoscopic surveillance for nondysplastic BE rather than none (conditional, low certainty); (2) NO endoscopic surveillance for columnar-lined esophagus <1 cm, even with intestinal metaplasia, when there is no neoplasia (conditional); (3) high-definition white-light endoscopy PLUS chromoendoscopy over white light alone (STRONG); (4) no recommendation for or against wide-area transepithelial sampling (WATS-3D) as an adjunct to structured biopsy; (5) no recommendation on p53 IHC and (6) no recommendation on TissueCypher as adjuncts to histopathology in NDBE, indefinite for dysplasia (IND), or LGD; (7) daily PPI over no PPI to prevent neoplastic progression (conditional); (8) PPI over antireflux surgery to prevent progression to HGD/EAC (conditional). Implementation statements require a high-quality exam, a structured (Seattle-type) biopsy protocol, confirmation of any BE-related dysplasia by an expert GI pathologist, intervals tailored to segment length and dysplasia grade, and shared decision-making. Surveillance should stop when a patient could not tolerate endoscopic therapy, surgery, or oncologic treatment for EAC, at any age. The AGA 2025 interval table could not be read directly (full text paywalled). Until it is, the intervals below are the ACG 2022 intervals, which remain consistent with AGA's segment-length framing: NDBE <3 cm every 5 years; NDBE >=3 cm every 3 years; IND, after a second-pathologist read, optimize to twice-daily PPI, repeat EGD within 6 months, then annually if IND persists; confirmed LGD on surveillance, EGD at 6 and 12 months, then annually. Diagnosis (IM plus >=1 cm columnar mucosa, no biopsy of a normal or <1 cm irregular Z line, >=8 biopsies), endoscopic eradication therapy (EET over esophagectomy for HGD/T1a (strong); EET suggested for confirmed LGD with surveillance an acceptable alternative; resect visible lesions before RFA; sm1 low-risk T1b may be considered for EET) and post-EET intervals (baseline LGD: 1 year, 3 years, then every 2 years; baseline HGD/T1a: 3, 6, 12 months, then annually) are still governed by ACG 2022. The AGA surveillance guideline does not address them, and AGA has said a separate screening guideline will follow in 2026.

AGA 2025 (surveillance) / ACG 2022 (diagnosis, endoscopic therapy, post-EET) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
Klimkowski R … Januszewicz W · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy rct · n=242 · Sep 30, 2026 · J Gastro Hep · IF 3.5

Efficacy and Safety of 1-L Polyethylene Glycol With Low Ascorbic Acid for Bowel Preparation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

New evidencecolonoscopyendoscopy qualitycolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayConsider using 1-L PEG + low Asc for bowel preparation in low-risk adults undergoing colonoscopy, as it is noninferior to standard regimens with comparable tolerability and safety.
What it found1-L PEG + low Asc achieved 92.7% successful bowel cleansing (Harefield Cleansing Scale), noninferior to 1-L PEG + Asc (100%) and 2-L PEG + Asc (98.7%) within a 13% margin.
ContextRefines current practice by showing that reducing ascorbic acid dose in 1-L PEG regimens maintains efficacy while potentially lowering adverse event risks.
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.

Baek JE … Lee KM · Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology · IF 3.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=675 · Oct 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

The Role of Artificial Intelligence Combined With Digital Cholangioscopy for Indeterminant and Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

New evidenceartificial intelligencebiliary stricturecomputer-aided detectionmeta-analysis
Clinical takeawayConsider AI-assisted cholangioscopy as a diagnostic adjunct for indeterminate biliary strictures, particularly in centers with access to this technology.
What it foundAI-assisted cholangioscopy achieved 95% sensitivity and 88% specificity for diagnosing indeterminate or malignant biliary strictures (SROC 97%).
ContextThis meta-analysis supports AI as a promising tool to improve diagnostic accuracy in biliary strictures, addressing the suboptimal performance of current ERCP and cholangioscopic methods.
Measured against the standard of care· ESGE 2026 (biliary stricture management; replaces ESGE 2018 stenting guideline) / ESGE 2025 (biliary stricture diagnosis)

… For distal extrahepatic strictures with no pancreatic mass, do combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition plus ERCP brushing and biopsy. … Management now follows the 2026 ESGE biliary stricture management guideline, which replaces the 2018 stenting guideline and brings it into line with the 2022 therapeutic EUS guideline. … Give antibiotics before ERCP in selected cases: predicted incomplete drainage, hilar strictures, immunocompromised patients, PSC, cholangioscopy. …

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

Diagnosis is unchanged and still follows the separate ESGE diagnostic guideline (Endoscopy 2025;57:166-185). Start with MRI/MRCP plus laboratory tests, read CA19-9 only after decompression, and check IgG4 when IgG4-related sclerosing cholangitis is suspected. For distal extrahepatic strictures with no pancreatic mass, do combined same-session EUS-guided tissue acquisition plus ERCP brushing and biopsy. For perihilar strictures, sample by ERCP first and move to cholangioscopy-guided biopsy if the result is indeterminate. Do not place an uncovered SEMS (USEMS) until malignancy is confirmed. Management now follows the 2026 ESGE biliary stricture management guideline, which replaces the 2018 stenting guideline and brings it into line with the 2022 therapeutic EUS guideline. Benign: post-cholecystectomy strictures get temporary multiple plastic stents (MPSs), exchanged every 3-4 months with as many stents as possible, for about 12 months. A fully covered SEMS (FCSEMS) is an option only if the stricture is more than 2 cm below the hepatic confluence or the patient will not comply with repeated ERCPs. Anastomotic strictures after liver transplant get MPSs, or a temporary FCSEMS if more than 2 cm below the confluence. Nonanastomotic post-transplant strictures that can be treated endoscopically get MPSs plus balloon dilation if needed. Chronic pancreatitis strictures get a temporary 8-10 mm FCSEMS for 6-12 months. High-grade PSC strictures get balloon dilation alone, with no stent, because stenting adds no benefit and may add adverse events. Endotherapy is indicated for a benign stricture with liver tests raised for more than 1 month and/or cholangitis. Malignant distal: drain before surgery only selectively (cholangitis, severe jaundice or pruritus, delayed surgery). When drainage is needed before surgery or neoadjuvant therapy, or for palliation, place a 10-mm SEMS endoscopically. Endoscopic drainage is preferred over surgery or PTBD for inoperable obstruction. Malignant hilar: manage in high-volume centres with a hepatobiliary multidisciplinary team (MDT). ERCP is preferred over PTBD for preoperative drainage. Palliate Bismuth I-II with ERCP. For Bismuth III-IV, ERCP or ERCP combined with EUS-guided drainage (EUS-BD) is preferred over primary PTBD, with PTBD as a complement if needed. For proven Bismuth II-IV, aim to drain more than 50%, ideally 70% or more, of the viable nonatrophic liver volume using several routes as needed. Use plastic stents when the drainage strategy is undefined or the centre is not expert. USEMS are for expert centres when the diagnosis is proven, the tumour is unresectable, and complete drainage is predicted. After failed or unfeasible ERCP, EUS-BD is recommended over PTBD. Use hepaticogastrostomy (EUS-HGS) if there is a duodenal stricture, and EUS-HGS or choledochoduodenostomy (EUS-CDS) if there is not. PTBD is used if EUS-BD fails. In surgically altered anatomy, benign disease gets enteroscopy-assisted ERCP first; malignant disease gets enteroscopy-assisted ERCP or EUS-BD. Give antibiotics before ERCP in selected cases: predicted incomplete drainage, hilar strictures, immunocompromised patients, PSC, cholangioscopy. This follows the ESGE ERCP-adverse-events guideline. Etiology-specific care (Strasberg injuries, IgG4-SC, Mirizzi, choledochal cysts) is unchanged.

ESGE 2026 (biliary stricture management; replaces ESGE 2018 stenting guideline) / ESGE 2025 (biliary stricture diagnosis) · reviewed 2026-10-11 ↗
McCarty TR … Njei B · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=342 · Oct 1, 2026 · Dig Endosc · IF 5.2

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Hepaticogastrostomy With Plastic Stent Versus Metallic Stent for Malignant Biliary Obstruction: A Meta-Analysis.

New evidenceEUSbiliary stricturemeta-analysisendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider using metal stents for EUS-HGS in malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP failure when prioritizing longer patency, but weigh the higher risk of adverse events compared to plastic stents.
What it foundIn EUS-HGS for malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP failure, metal stents had longer time to recurrent biliary obstruction (HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.42-2.36) but higher adverse event rates (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.30-0.77) compared to plastic stents.
ContextRefines stent selection in EUS-HGS for malignant biliary obstruction after ERCP failure, confirming metal stents' longer patency but higher adverse event risk compared to plastic stents.
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.

Yamazaki H … Kitano M · Digestive Endoscopy : Official Journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · IF 5.2 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy meta analysis · n=1,442 · Oct 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Cold Versus Hot Endoscopic Mucosal Resection for ≥15 mm Large Nonpedunculated Colorectal Polyps: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

New evidencecost-effectivenesspolypectomyEMRcolorectal cancer screening
Clinical takeawayConsider C-EMR over H-EMR for LNPCPs ≥15 mm due to its cost-effectiveness and lower risk of adverse events, despite slightly higher recurrence rates compared to H-EMR.
What it foundCold EMR (C-EMR) was cost-effective vs hot EMR (H-EMR) for LNPCPs ≥15 mm, with an ICER of -$669,448 per QALY.
ContextRefines current practice by providing cost-effectiveness evidence favoring C-EMR over H-EMR, which is standard but carries higher risks of delayed bleeding and perforation.
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.

Sonaiya S … Mohan BP · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=443 · Sep 30, 2026 · GIE · IF 8.0

Clinical outcomes of incomplete diverticular inversion after endoscopic band ligation for colonic diverticular bleeding.

New evidencehemostasiscolorectal cancerendoscopy qualitycolorectal surgery
Clinical takeawayWhen performing EBL for colonic diverticular bleeding, prioritize achieving complete inversion to reduce rebleeding risk. Indirect clipping may be considered if complete inversion is difficult, but its rebleeding rate (44.3%) was not significantly different from incomplete inversion.
What it foundIncomplete inversion after EBL was associated with 37.8% 30-day rebleeding vs 10.9% with complete inversion (adjusted OR 4.25, 95% CI 2.07-8.73).
ContextConfirms the importance of complete inversion in EBL for CDB, which was previously assumed but not quantified. Indirect clipping's efficacy compared to incomplete inversion remains inconclusive.
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.

Ichita C … Hattori T · Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · IF 8.0 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=1,054 · Oct 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

The Impact of Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists Versus Diabetes Mellitus on Endoscopic Procedures: A Case-Control Study From a Large Tertiary Care Health System.

New evidence
Clinical takeawayCounsel patients on GLP1-RAs to adhere to a 24-hour liquid diet and bowel preparation before endoscopy to mitigate GFR risk, compared to diabetics off GLP1-RAs.
What it foundGLP1-RAs increased gastric food retention (GFR) to 4.7% vs 1% in matched diabetics off GLP1-RAs (P=0.03), but did not affect inadequate bowel preparation (16.5% vs 16.5%, P=1).
ContextConfirms GLP1-RAs independently increase GFR risk in adults 18+ undergoing outpatient EGD/colonoscopy, but challenges prior concerns about inadequate bowel preparation.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, "6. Glycemic Goals, Hypoglycemia, and Hyperglycemic Crises: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026," Diabetes Care 2026;49(Supplement_1):S132-S149

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

Manage diabetes in GI/hepatology patients by individualizing the A1c target to the population, in cirrhosis, A1c is unreliable because altered red blood cell turnover typically underestimates glycemia, so set glycemic goals using blood glucose monitoring and/or CGM rather than a fixed A1c cutoff, and in diabetic gastroparesis individualize the target rather than applying a universal cutoff; ≤7% pre-bariatric, <6.5% pre-conception, while screening all T2DM for MASLD with FIB-4, screening T1DM for concurrent celiac disease, and screening for diabetic gastroparesis when chronic nausea, early satiety, or postprandial fullness are present. Evaluate new-onset DM after age 50 without obesity for a pancreatic cancer differential, and coordinate peri-procedural medication holds and multidisciplinary endocrinology involvement.

American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee, "6. Glycemic Goals, Hypoglycemia, and Hyperglycemic Crises: Standards of Care in Diabetes-2026," Diabetes Care 2026;49(Supplement_1):S132-S149 · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Bahdi F … Muthusamy VR · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=40 · Oct 1, 2026 · BMC Gastro · IF 2.5

Large language models' performance in answering common patient questions about colonoscopy: an expert-based evaluation.

New evidenceartificial intelligencecolonoscopyendoscopy qualitycomputer-aided detection
Clinical takeawayConsider using ChatGPT-4 as a supplementary tool for patient education on colonoscopy, but ensure human oversight to verify accuracy and safety.
What it foundChatGPT-4 outperformed Google Bard in answering colonoscopy-related questions, with median overall index scores ranging from 4.1 to 4.7 vs 3.6 to 4.0, and significantly higher ratings in accuracy, applicability, comprehensiveness, and communication (p < 0.05, effect sizes 0.46-0.64).
ContextThis study provides evidence that ChatGPT-4 may be a more reliable resource for patient education compared to Google Bard, though human review remains critical.
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.

Güneş Aydemi̇r N … Aydemir AM · BMC Gastroenterology · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy retrospective · n=259 · Oct 1, 2026 · Dig Dis Sci · IF 2.5

The Hedgehog Method Following Gastric Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection: Observed Postoperative Bleeding Rates Across BEST-J Risk Categories.

New evidenceESDhemostasisendoscopy quality
Clinical takeawayConsider the Hedgehog method for gastric ESD, particularly in low-risk BEST-J patients, as it demonstrated a low postoperative bleeding rate. No clinical action yet: this is a retrospective study without a control group, requiring confirmation in controlled trials.
What it foundPostoperative bleeding occurred in 1.2% of patients (3/259) after gastric ESD using the Hedgehog method, all in the low-risk BEST-J group (1.6%, 95% CI 0.3-4.7%). No bleeding occurred in intermediate-risk (0/31), high-risk (0/32), or very-high-risk groups (0/11). All three bleeding lesions were located in the antrum, and none of the patients received antithrombotic therapy.
ContextThis study provides initial evidence supporting the Hedgehog method's safety in gastric ESD, particularly in low-risk patients, but challenges the assumption that higher-risk groups would have higher bleeding 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.

Terasaki K … Okanoue T · Digestive Diseases and Sciences · IF 2.5 · PubMed ↗Permalink
Endoscopy prospective cohort · n=1,982 · Oct 1, 2026 · J Clin Gastro · IF 2.9

Associations Between Antiparietal Cell Antibody Values and Atrophy in a South and Southeast Asian General Population.

New evidenceepidemiologybiomarkerbasic science
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: APCA positivity does not correlate with atrophy severity in this population, and the clinical significance of APCA positivity without autoimmune gastritis remains unclear.
What it foundAPCA positivity, defined as a titer >10, was 44.0% (873/1982) in symptomatic patients from South and Southeast Asia, but no significant correlation was found between APCA results and atrophy severity. Severe predominant corpus atrophy and positive pepsinogen tests were rare, suggesting a low rate of autoimmune gastritis in this population.
ContextChallenges the assumption that APCA positivity reliably predicts autoimmune gastritis or atrophy severity in South and Southeast Asian populations, particularly given the low rate of severe predominant corpus atrophy and positive pepsinogen tests.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34)

… Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. …

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

Perform individual gastric risk assessment and staging of precancerous conditions at first-time gastroscopy, irrespective of the patient's country of origin. Use high quality endoscopy with virtual chromoendoscopy (VCE), after proper training, for screening, diagnosis and staging of atrophy and intestinal metaplasia and after endoscopic therapy; VCE guides the biopsy site, with random biopsies taken only when there are no endoscopically suspected changes. Take biopsies from at least two topographic sites, 2 from the antrum/incisura and 2 from the corpus, VCE-guided, in two separate, clearly labeled vials; an additional incisura biopsy is optional, not required. Stage with validated endoscopic classifications of atrophy (e.g. Kimura-Takemoto) or intestinal metaplasia (e.g. EGGIM) to stratify gastric cancer risk (suggestion, weaker than the biopsy recommendation). Follow up patients with extensive endoscopic changes (Kimura C3+ or EGGIM 5+) OR an advanced histological stage that reaches OLGA/OLGIM III/IV, severe atrophy or intestinal metaplasia and/or significant changes in both antrum and corpus rising to stage III/IV, not any intestinal metaplasia or any antrum-plus-corpus involvement on its own, with high quality endoscopy every 3 years, irrespective of country of origin (strong recommendation, moderate quality). Propose NO surveillance for patients with mild to moderate atrophy or intestinal metaplasia restricted to the antrum, in the absence of endoscopic signs of extensive lesions or other risk factors (family history of gastric cancer, incomplete intestinal metaplasia, persistent H. pylori infection), the guideline states this group constitutes most individuals found in clinical practice. Eradicate H. pylori in all patients with precancerous conditions and after endoscopic or surgical therapy. Discontinue or do not start gastric cancer screening or surveillance in asymptomatic individuals over 80, and weigh comorbidities when planning treatment of superficial lesions. Advise smoking cessation; low-dose daily aspirin may be considered for gastric cancer prevention only in selected individuals already at high cardiovascular risk. For visible neoplasia, use ESD for differentiated lesions clinically staged as dysplastic (low or high grade) or intramucosal carcinoma (any size if not ulcerated, or ≤30 mm if ulcerated), with EMR an alternative for Paris 0-IIa lesions ≤10 mm with low likelihood of malignancy. At the population level, endoscopic screening is suggested every 2-3 years in high-risk regions (age-standardized rate >20 per 100,000 person-years), every 5 years in intermediate-risk regions (ASR 10-20) only if cost-effectiveness has been proven, and not at all in low-risk regions (ASR <10).

European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG) and European Society of Pathology (ESP), "Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and early neoplasia of the stomach (MAPS III): Guideline update 2025", Endoscopy, 2025 (Recommendations 31 and 34) · reviewed 2026-07-23 ↗
Sugimoto M … Yamaoka Y · Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology · IF 2.9 · PubMed ↗Permalink
← Back to issue №14 Every section of this issue is one click away, at the top of this page. Follow Endoscopy by RSS