View More View Less
  • 1 Magyar Honvédség Egészségügyi Központ, Honvédkórház, Gasztroenterológiai Osztály, , Budapest
  • | 2 Szent-Györgyi Albert Klinikai Központ, Szegedi Tudományegyetem, I. sz. Belgyógyászati Klinika, , Szeged
  • | 3 Bács-Kiskun Megyei Kórház, Belgyógyászat-Gasztroenterológiai Osztály, , Kecskemét
  • | 4 Szent Imre Egyetemi Oktatókórház, Gasztroenterológiai Osztály, , Budapest
  • | 5 Pécsi Tudományegyetem Klinikai Központ, I. sz. Belgyógyászati Klinika, , Pécs
Open access

Összefoglaló. A tápcsatorna endoszkópiája a gasztrointesztinális rendszer betegségeinek legfontosabb vizsgáló eljárása, a diagnosztikán túl egyre szélesedő körben terápiás beavatkozási lehetőséget is magában foglal. A jó minőségben végzett endoszkópia javítja az esetlegesen fennálló betegség kimenetelét és növeli a betegelégedettséget. A nemzetközi emésztőszervi endoszkópos társaságok elsőrendű fontosságúnak határozták meg az endoszkópia minőségének javítását célzó törekvéseket. Az endoszkópos tevékenységek minőségének ellenőrzésében és javításában a meghatározott indikátorok folyamatos követése fontos feladat, ezek révén biztosítható betegeink számára a legmagasabb szintű ellátás. A bizonyítékon alapuló minőségi indikátorok lehetővé teszik az egyes endoszkóposok és az endoszkópos vizsgálóhelyek összehasonlítását és az általuk nyújtott szolgáltatás értékelését. A fenntartónak betegbiztonsági és költséghatékonysági szempontból is fontos ismerni, hogy melyik szolgáltató tudja teljesíteni a minimálisan elvárt és fejlődési célként kitűzött teljesítménymutatókat, melyik ellátónál milyen tényezőket szükséges megváltoztatni, javítani. A szerzők az európai útmutatókat alapul véve a felső tápcsatorna endoszkópiája, az alsó tápcsatorna endoszkópia, a pancreatobiliaris endoszkópia, a vékonybél endoszkópia, a kapszula endoszkópia és az endoszkópos szolgáltatás területén határozták meg a klinikailag releváns teljesítménymutatók auditálható magyar rendszerét. Az egységesség, a jobb digitalizálhatóság és könnyebb auditálhatóság céljából a felső, az alsó, a pancreatobiliaris, a vékonybél és a kapszula endoszkópia vonatkozásában a magyar ajánlásban a minőségi alterületeket egységesen (1–8) számozták, minden szám ugyanazon szempontrendszert jelenti. Az endoszkópos szolgáltatás komplex minőségi mutatóinál szigorúan ragaszkodtak az európai irányelvhez, itt 9 különböző alterületbe foglalták össze a 30 minőségi mutatót. A szűrő kolonoszkópia kiemelt jelentősége miatt a jelen minőségi endoszkópos útmutatóba foglalták bele eltérő szerkezettel a szűrő kolonoszkópos program során alkalmazott minőségi mutatókat, illetve a bélelőkészítést érintő néhány alapvetést is.

Summary. Nowadays, endoscopy is the cornerstone in the diagnosis and therapy of gastrointestinal diseases. Good quality endoscopy can improve outcome of the disease and patients experience. International endoscopy societies prioritized efforts improving quality of endoscopy. The highest level of patient care can be provided through continuous assessment and improvement of relevant quality indicators. The comparison of these evidence based performance measures between endoscopists and endoscopy providers allow the objective evaluation of the service. Furthermore, from the point of view of patient safety and cost effectiveness the health care provider should know the minimum standards and target goals, as well, to make grounded decisions about fields of necessary changes and improvements. The authors based on European guidelines worked out this comprehensive auditable Hungarian system of performance measures in the fields of upper endoscopy, lower endoscopy, pancreatobiliary endoscopy, capsule endoscopy, enteroscopy and general endoscopy service. Due to commonality all domains were counted similarly (1–8) in different endoscopic procedures. The general endoscopy service is an exception with 9 domains and 30 quality parameters. The outstanding importance of colorectal cancer screening required involving this topic into this guideline with separate structure, as well as the basics of bowel preparation.

  • 1

    Rutter MD, Senore C, Bisschops R, et al.: The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Quality Improvement Initiative: developing performance measures. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 81–89.

  • 2

    Rutter MD, Rees CJ: Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 526–528.

  • 3

    Yalamarthi S, Witherspoon P, McCole D, et al.: Missed diagnoses in patients with upper gastrointestinal cancers. Endoscopy 2004; 36: 874–879.

  • 4

    Morris EJ, Rutter MD, Finan PJ, et al.: Post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) rates vary considerably depending on the method used to calculate them: a retrospective observational population-based study of PCCRC in the English National Health Service. Gut 2015; 64: 1248–1256.

  • 5

    Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J, et al.: Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 48–59.

  • 6

    Park WG, Shaheen NJ, Cohen J, et al.: Quality indicators for EGD. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 17–30.

  • 7

    Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J, et al.: Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 31–53.

  • 8

    Adler DG, Lieb JG, Cohen J, et al.: Quality indicators for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 54–66.

  • 9

    Wani S, Wallace MB, Cohen J, et al.: Quality indicators for EUS. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 67–80.

  • 10

    Bisschops R, Areia M, Coron E, et al.: Performance measures for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 843–864.

  • 11

    Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M, et al.: Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378–397.

  • 12

    Rembacken B, Hassan C, Riemann J, et al.: Quality in screening colonoscopy: position statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 957–968.

  • 13

    Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L, et al.: Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1116–1127.

  • 14

    Valori R, Cortas G, de Lange T, et al.: Performance measures for endoscopy services: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1186–1204.

  • 15

    Spada C, McNamara D, Despott EJ, et al.: Performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 574–598.

  • 16

    Armstrong D, Bennett JR, Blum AL, et al.: The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: a progress report on observer agreement. Gastroenterology 1996; 111: 85–92.

  • 17

    Cheng HT, Cheng CL, Lin CH, et al.: Caustic ingestion in adults: the role of endoscopic classification in predicting outcome. BMC Gastroenterol 2008; 8: 31.

  • 18

    Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D, et al.: The development and validation of an endoscopic grading system for Barrett’s esophagus: the Prague C & M criteria. Gastroenterology 2006; 131: 1392–1399.

  • 19

    Forrest JA, Finlayson ND, Shearman DJ: Endoscopy in gastrointestinal bleeding. Lancet 1974; 2: 394–397.

  • 20

    de Groot NL, van Oijen MG, Kessels K, et al.: Reassessment of the predictive value of the Forrest classification for peptic ulcer rebleeding and mortality: can classification be simplified? Endoscopy 2014; 46: 46–52.

  • 21

    Spigelman AD, Williams CB, Talbot IC, et al.: Upper gastrointestinal cancer in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Lancet 1989; 2: 783–785.

  • 22

    [Anonymous]. The Paris endoscopic classification of superficial neoplastic lesions: esophagus, stomach, and colon: November 30 to December 1, 2002. Gastrointest Endosc 2003; 58: S3–43.

  • 23

    de Franchis R, Faculty BV: Revising consensus in portal hypertension: report of the Baveno V consensus workshop on methodology of diagnosis and therapy in portal hypertension. J Hepatol 2010; 53: 762–768.

  • 24

    Reid BJ, Blount PL, Feng Z, et al.: Optimizing endoscopic biopsy detection of early cancers in Barrett’s high-grade dysplasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 3089–3096.

  • 25

    Dinis-Ribeiro M, Areia M, de Vries AC, et al.: Management of precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS): guideline from the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter Study Group (EHSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and the Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED). Endoscopy 2012; 44: 74–94.

  • 26

    Pimentel-Nunes P, Libanio D, Marcos-Pinto R, et al.: Management of epithelial precancerous conditions and lesions in the stomach (MAPS II): European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE), European Helicobacter and Microbiota Study Group (EHMSG), European Society of Pathology (ESP), and Sociedade Portuguesa de Endoscopia Digestiva (SPED) guideline update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 365–388.

  • 27

    Calderwood AH, Jacobson BC.: Comprehensive validation of the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72: 686–692.

  • 28

    Rostom A, Jolicoeur E: Validation of a new scale for the assessment of bowel preparation quality. Gastrointest Endosc 2004; 59: 482–486.

  • 29

    Aronchick CA, Lipshutz WH, Wright SH, et al.: A novel tableted purgative for colonoscopic preparation: efficacy and safety comparisons with Colyte and Fleet Phospho-Soda. Gastrointest Endosc 2000; 52: 346–352.

  • 30

    Bretthauer M, Kaminski MF, Loberg M, et al.: Population-based colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 2016; 176: 894–902.

  • 31

    Zorzi M, Valiante F, Germana B, et al.: Comparison between different colon cleansing products for screening colonoscopy. A noninferiority trial in population-based screening programs in Italy. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 223–231.

  • 32

    Radaelli F, Paggi S, Hassan C, et al.: Split-dose preparation for colonoscopy increases adenoma detection rate: a randomised controlled trial in an organised screening programme. Gut 2017; 66: 270–277.

  • 33

    Froehlich F, Wietlisbach V, Gonvers JJ, et al.: Impact of colonic cleansing on quality and diagnostic yield of colonoscopy: the European Panel of Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy European multicenter study. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 61: 378–384.

  • 34

    Rex DK, Imperiale TF, Latinovich DR, et al.: Impact of bowel preparation on efficiency and cost of colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1696–1700.

  • 35

    Whitson MJ, Bodian CA, Aisenberg J, et al.: Is production pressure jeopardizing the quality of colonoscopy? A survey of U.S. endoscopists’ practices and perceptions. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 641–648.

  • 36

    Condiotte AM, Robertson DJ, Blodgett C, et al.: “Running late” and adenoma detection – is there an association? Endoscopy 2015; 47: 232–237.

  • 37

    Hassan C, Di Giulio E, Marmo R, et al.: Appropriateness of the indication for colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2011; 20: 279–286.

  • 38

    Gimeno Garcia AZ, Gonzalez Y, Quintero E, et al.: Clinical validation of the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE) II criteria in an open-access unit: a prospective study. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 32–37.

  • 39

    Mangualde J, Cremers MI, Vieira AM, et al.: Appropriateness of outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopy in a non-academic hospital. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 3: 195–200.

  • 40

    Carrion S, Marin I, Lorenzo-Zuniga V, et al.: [Appropriateness of colonoscopy indications according to the new EPAGE II criteria] Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 33: 484–489.

  • 41

    Neilson LJ, Bevan R, Panter S, et al.: Terminal ileal intubation and biopsy in routine colonoscopy practice. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2015; 9: 567–574.

  • 42

    Baxter NN, Sutradhar R, Forbes SS, et al.: Analysis of administrative data finds endoscopist quality measures associated with postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 65–72.

  • 43

    Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Rupinski M, et al.: Increased Rate of Adenoma Detection Associates With Reduced Risk of Colorectal Cancer and Death. Gastroenterology 2017; 153: 98–105.

  • 44

    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Doughty AS, et al.: Colonoscopic withdrawal times and adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2533–2541.

  • 45

    Moritz V, Bretthauer M, Ruud HK, et al.: Withdrawal time as a quality indicator for colonoscopy – a nationwide analysis. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 476–481.

  • 46

    Lee TJ, Blanks RG, Rees CJ, et al.: Longer mean colonoscopy withdrawal time is associated with increased adenoma detection: evidence from the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 20–26.

  • 47

    Sawhney MS, Cury MS, Neeman N, et al.: Effect of institution-wide policy of colonoscopy withdrawal time \> or = 7 minutes on polyp detection. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1892–1898.

  • 48

    Barclay RL, Vicari JJ, Greenlaw RL: Effect of a time-dependent colonoscopic withdrawal protocol on adenoma detection during screening colonoscopy. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2008; 6: 1091–1098.

  • 49

    Shaukat A, Rector TS, Church TR, et al.: Longer withdrawal time is associated with a reduced incidence of interval cancer after screening colonoscopy. Gastroenterology 2015; 149: 952–957.

  • 50

    Vavricka SR, Sulz MC, Degen L, et al.: Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal time significantly improves the adenoma detection rate and the performance of endoscopists. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 256–262.

  • 51

    Lee RH, Tang RS, Muthusamy VR, et al.: Quality of colonoscopy withdrawal technique and variability in adenoma detection rates (with videos). Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 128–134.

  • 52

    Rutter MD, Chilton A, Patnick J.: Monitoring colonoscopy withdrawal times remains important. Endoscopy 2013; 45: 73.

  • 53

    Boroff ES, Gurudu SR Hentz JG, et al.: Polyp and adenoma detection rates in the proximal and distal colon. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108: 993–999.

  • 54

    Kaminski MF, Wieszczy P, Kolacz A, et al.: Tu1006 comparison of quality measures for detection of neoplasia at screening colonoscopy. Gastrointestinal Endoscopy 2016; 83: AB527.

  • 55

    Williams JE, Holub JL, Faigel DO: Polypectomy rate is a valid quality measure for colonoscopy: results from a national endoscopy database. Gastrointest Endosc 2012; 75: 576–582.

  • 56

    Patel NC, Islam RS, Wu Q, et al.: Measurement of polypectomy rate by using administrative claims data with validation against the adenoma detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 390–394.

  • 57

    Francis DL, Rodriguez-Correa DT, Buchner A, et al.: Application of a conversion factor to estimate the adenoma detection rate from the polyp detection rate. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 73: 493–497.

  • 58

    Atia MA, Patel NC, Ratuapli SK, et al.: Nonneoplastic polypectomy during screening colonoscopy: the impact on polyp detection rate, adenoma detection rate, and overall cost. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 82: 370–375.

  • 59

    Robertson DJ, Lieberman DA, Winawer SJ, et al.: Colorectal cancers soon after colonoscopy: a pooled multicohort analysis. Gut 2014; 63: 949–956.

  • 60

    Pohl H, Srivastava A, Bensen SP, et al.: Incomplete polyp resection during colonoscopy – results of the complete adenoma resection (CARE) study. Gastroenterology 2013; 144: 74–80.

  • 61

    Kim JS, Lee BI, Choi H, et al.: Cold snare polypectomy versus cold forceps polypectomy for diminutive and small colorectal polyps: a randomized controlled trial. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 741-747.

  • 62

    Britto-Arias M, Waldmann E, Jeschek P, et al.: Forceps versus snare polypectomies in colorectal cancer screening: are we adhering to the guidelines? Endoscopy 2015; 47: 898–902.

  • 63

    Din S, Ball AJ, Taylor E, et al.: Polypectomy practices of sub-centimeter polyps in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Surg Endosc 2015; 29: 3224–3230.

  • 64

    Moss A, Bourke MJ, Williams SJ, et al.: Endoscopic mucosal resection outcomes and prediction of submucosal cancer from advanced colonic mucosal neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2011; 140: 1909–1918.

  • 65

    Aziz Aadam A, Wani S, Kahi C, et al.: Physician assessment and management of complex colon polyps: a multicenter video-based survey study. Am J Gastroenterol 2014; 109: 1312–1324.

  • 66

    van Doorn SC, Hazewinkel Y, East JE, et al.: Polyp morphology: an interobserver evaluation for the Paris classification among international experts. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 180–187

  • 67

    Soetikno R, Friedland S, Kaltenbach T, et al.: Nonpolypoid (flat and depressed) colorectal neoplasms. Gastroenterology 2006; 130: 566–589.

  • 68

    Gavin DR, Valori RM, Anderson JT, et al.: The national colonoscopy audit: a nationwide assessment of the quality and safety of colonoscopy in the UK. Gut 2013; 62: 242–249.

  • 69

    Committee ASoP, Fisher DA, Maple JT, et al.: Complications of colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 745–752.

  • 70

    Warren JL, Klabunde CN, Mariotto AB, et al.: Adverse events after outpatient colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Ann Intern Med 2009; 150: 849–857, W152.

  • 71

    Ko CW, Dominitz JA: Complications of colonoscopy: magnitude and management. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2010; 20: 659–671.

  • 72

    Ko CW, Riffle S, Michaels L, et al.: Serious complications within 30 days of screening and surveillance colonoscopy are uncommon. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 8: 166–173.

  • 73

    Hoff G, Bretthauer M, Huppertz-Hauss G, et al.: The Norwegian Gastronet project: Continuous quality improvement of colonoscopy in 14 Norwegian centres. Scand J Gastroenterol 2006; 41: 481–487.

  • 74

    McLachlan SA, Clements A, Austoker J: Patients’ experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context – a systematic review of the literature. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 86: 137–146.

  • 75

    Seip B, Bretthauer M, Dahler S, et al.: Patient satisfaction with on-demand sedation for outpatient colonoscopy. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 639–646.

  • 76

    Rostom A, Ross ED, Dube C, et al.: Development and validation of a nurse-assessed patient comfort score for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2013; 77: 255–261.

  • 77

    Kaminski MF, Kraszewska E, Rupinski M, et al.: Design of the Polish Colonoscopy Screening Program: a randomized health services study. Endoscopy 2015; 47: 1144–1150.

  • 78

    Ren J, Kirkness CS, Kim M, et al.: Long-term risk of colorectal cancer by gender after positive colonoscopy: population-based cohort study. Curr Med Res Opin 2016; 32: 1367–1374.

  • 79

    Schreuders E, Sint Nicolaas J, de Jonge V, et al.: The appropriateness of surveillance colonoscopy intervals after polypectomy. Can J Gastroenterol 2013; 27: 33–38.

  • 80

    Bretthauer M, Aabakken L, Dekker E, et al.: Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement. United European Gastroenterol J 2016; 4: 172–176.

  • 81

    Herszényi L, Lakatos G, Tulassay Z: Minőségi kolonoszkópia: feltételek és elvárások. [Quality colonoscopy: assumptions and expectations]. Orv Hetil 2010; 151: 1331–1339.

  • 82

    Standards of Practice Committee of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Lichtenstein DR, Jagannath S, et al.: Sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 815–826.

  • 83

    Goulson DT, Fragneto RY: Anesthesia for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Anesthesiol Clin 2009; 27: 71–85.

  • 84

    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Early DS, Lightdale JR, et al.: Guidelines for sedation and anesthesia in GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 327–337.

  • 85

    UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Group. Results of the first round of a demonstration pilot of screening for colorectal cancer in the United Kingdom. BMJ 2004; 329: 133.

  • 86

    Lieberman DA, Weiss DG, Bond JH, et al.: Use of colonoscopy to screen asymptomatic adults for colorectal cancer. Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study Group 380. N Engl J Med 2000; 343:162–168.

  • 87

    Bronzwaer MES, Depla A, van Lelyveld N, et al.: Quality assurance of colonoscopy within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening program. Gastrointest Endosc 2019; 89: 1–13.

  • 88

    Wilkins T, LeClair B, Smolkin M, et al.: Screening colonoscopies by primary care physicians: a meta-analysis. Ann Fam Med 2009; 7: 56–62.

  • 89

    Denis B, Sauleau EA, Gendre I, et al.: Measurement of adenoma detection and discrimination during colonoscopy in routine practice: an exploratory study. Gastrointest Endosc 2011; 74: 1325–1336.

  • 90

    Imperiale TF, Glowinski EA, Lin-Cooper C, et al.: Five-year risk of colorectal neoplasia after negative screening colonoscopy. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1218–1224.

  • 91

    Zauber AG, Winawer SJ, O’Brien MJ, et al.: Colonoscopic polypectomy and long-term prevention of colorectal-cancer deaths. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 687–696.

  • 92

    Brenner H, Stock C, Hoffmeister M: Effect of screening sigmoidoscopy and screening colonoscopy on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies. BMJ 2014; 348: g2467.

  • 93

    Pignone M, Saha S, Hoerger T, et al.: Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 96–104.

  • 94

    Zhang J, Cheng Z, Ma Y, et al.: Effectiveness of screening modalities in colorectal cancer: A network meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer 2017; 16: 252–263.

  • 95

    Kluge MA, Williams JL, Wu CK, et al.: Inadequate Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores predict the risk of missed neoplasia on the next colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 744–751.

  • 96

    Adler J, Robertson DJ: Interval colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: Exploring explanations and solutions. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 1657–1665.

  • 97

    van Rijn JC, Reitsma JB, Stoker J, et al.: Polyp miss rate determined by tandem colonoscopy: a systematic review. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 343–350.

  • 98

    Patel SG, Ahnen DJ: Prevention of interval colorectal cancers: what every clinician needs to know. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12: 7–15.

  • 99

    le Clercq CM, Bouwens MW, Rondagh EJ, et al.: Postcolonoscopy colorectal cancers are preventable: a population-based study. Gut 2014; 63: 957–963.

  • 100

    Brenner H, Chang-Claude J, Seiler CM, et al.: Protection from colorectal cancer after colonoscopy: a population-based, case-control study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 22–30.

  • 101

    Robertson DJ, Greenberg ER, Beach M, et al.: Colorectal cancer in patients under close colonoscopic surveillance. Gastroenterology 2005; 129: 34–41.

  • 102

    Singh H, Nugent Z, Demers AA, et al.: Rate and predictors of early/missed colorectal cancers after colonoscopy in Manitoba: a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105:2588–2596.

  • 103

    Enns R: Quality indicators in colonoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2007; 21: 277–279.

  • 104

    Rabeneck L, Paszat LF, Hilsden RJ, et al.: Bleeding and perforation after outpatient colonoscopy and their risk factors in usual clinical practice. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1899–1906.

  • 105

    Beilenhoff U, Biering H, Blum R, et al.: Reprocessing of flexible endoscopes and endoscopic accessories used in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position Statement of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and European Society of Gastroenterology Nurses and Associates (ESGENA) – Update 2018. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1205–1234.

  • 106

    Hassan C, East J, Radaelli F, et al.: Bowel preparation for colonoscopy: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline – Update 2019. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 775–794.

  • 107

    ASGE Standards of Practice Committee, Saltzman JR, Cash BD, et al.: Bowel preparation before colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 781–794.

  • 108

    Rocha RSP, Ribeiro IB, de Moura DTH, et al.: Sodium picosulphate or polyethylene glycol before elective colonoscopy in outpatients? A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 10: 422–441.

  • 109

    Jin Z, Lu Y, Zhou Y, et al.: Systematic review and meta-analysis: sodium picosulfate/magnesium citrate vs. polyethylene glycol for colonoscopy preparation. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2016; 72: 523–532.

  • 110

    Abdul-Baki H, Hashash JG, Elhajj II, et al.: A randomized, controlled, double-blind trial of the adjunct use of tegaserod in whole-dose or split-dose polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 68: 294–336.

  • 111

    Restellini S, Kherad O, Menard C, et al.: Do adjuvants add to the efficacy and tolerance of bowel preparations? A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 159–176.

  • 112

    Wu KL, Rayner CK, Chuah SK, et al.: Impact of low-residue diet on bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Dis Colon Rectum 2011; 54: 107–112.

  • 113

    Adams WJ, Meagher AP, Lubowski DZ, et al.: Bisacodyl reduces the volume of polyethylene glycol solution required for bowel preparation. Dis Colon Rectum 1994; 37: 229–234.

  • 114

    Aoun E, Abdul-Baki H, Azar C, et al.: A randomized single-blind trial of split-dose PEG-electrolyte solution without dietary restriction compared with whole dose PEG-electrolyte solution with dietary restriction for colonoscopy preparation. Gastrointest Endosc 2005; 62: 213–218.

  • 115

    Soweid AM, Kobeissy AA, Jamali FR, et al.: A randomized single-blind trial of standard diet versus fiber-free diet with polyethylene glycol electrolyte solution for colonoscopy preparation. Endoscopy 2010; 42: 633–638.

  • 116

    Lever EL, Walter MH, Condon SC, et al.: Addition of enemas to oral lavage preparation for colonoscopy is not necessary. Gastrointest Endosc 1992; 38: 369–372.

  • 117

    Mishima Y, Amano Y, Okita K, et al.: Efficacy of prokinetic agents in improving bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Digestion 2008; 77: 166–172.

  • 118

    Wu L, Cao Y, Liao C, et al.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of Simethicone for gastrointestinal endoscopic visibility. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46: 227–235.

  • 119

    Bai Y, Gao F, Gao J, et al.: Prophylactic antibiotics cannot prevent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography-induced cholangitis: a meta-analysis. Pancreas 2009; 38: 126–130.

  • 120

    Brand M, Bizos D, O’Farrell P, Jr.: Antibiotic prophylaxis for patients undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010: CD007345.

  • 121

    O’Toole D, Palazzo L, Arotcarena R, et al.: Assessment of complications of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 470–474.

  • 122

    Lee LS, Saltzman JR, Bounds BC, et al.: EUS-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic cysts: a retrospective analysis of complications and their predictors. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 231–236.

  • 123

    Testoni PA, Mariani A, Aabakken L, et al.: Papillary cannulation and sphincterotomy techniques at ERCP: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Clinical Guideline. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 657–683.

  • 124

    Iglesias-Garcia J, Dominguez-Munoz JE, Abdulkader I, et al.: Influence of on-site cytopathology evaluation on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106: 1705–1710.

  • 125

    Miao L, Fan Z, Ji G, et al.: Endoscopic stent for palliating malignant and benign biliary obstruction. Chinese Journal of Cancer Research 2004; 16: 118–122.

  • 126

    van Berkei AM, Huibregtse IL, Bergman JJ, et al.: A prospective randomized trial of Tannenbaum-type Teflon-coated stents versus polyethylene stents for distal malignant biliary obstruction. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2004; 16: 213–217.

  • 127

    Kuo CM, Chiu YC, Changchien CS, et al.: Endoscopic papillary balloon dilation for removal of bile duct stones: evaluation of outcomes and complications in 298 patients. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46: 860–864.

  • 128

    Oppong KW, Romagnuolo J, Cotton PB: The ERCP quality network benchmarking project: a preliminary comparison of practice in UK and USA. Frontline Gastroenterol 2012; 3: 157–161.

  • 129

    Kochar B, Akshintala VS, Afghani E, et al.: Incidence, severity, and mortality of post-ERCP pancreatitis: a systematic review by using randomized, controlled trials. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 143–149.

  • 130

    Kapral C, Duller C, Wewalka F, et al.: Case volume and outcome of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: results of a nationwide Austrian benchmarking project. Endoscopy 2008; 40: 625–630.

  • 131

    Enochsson L, Swahn F, Arnelo U, et al.: Nationwide, population-based data from 11,074 ERCP procedures from the Swedish Registry for Gallstone Surgery and ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 72:1175–1184.

  • 132

    Testoni PA, Mariani A, Giussani A, et al.: Risk factors for post-ERCP pancreatitis in high- and low-volume centers and among expert and non-expert operators: a prospective multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2010; 105: 1753–1761.

  • 133

    Dumonceau JM, Andriulli A, Elmunzer BJ, et al.: Prophylaxis of post-ERCP pancreatitis: European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) guideline – Updated June 2014. Endoscopy 2014; 46: 799–815.

  • 134

    Cotton PB, Lehman G, Vennes J, et al.: Endoscopic sphincterotomy complications and their management: an attempt at consensus. Gastrointest Endosc 1991; 37: 383–393.

  • 135

    Liao Z, Gao R, Xu C, et al.: Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. Gastrointest Endosc 2010; 71: 280–286.

  • 136

    Rokkas T, Papaxoinis K, Triantafyllou K, et al.: Does purgative preparation influence the diagnostic yield of small bowel video capsule endoscopy?: A meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol 2009; 104: 219–227.

  • 137

    Koulaouzidis A, Giannakou A, Yung DE, et al.: Do prokinetics influence the completion rate in small-bowel capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Curr Med Res Opin 2013; 29: 1171–1185.

  • 138

    Kotwal VS, Attar BM, Gupta S, et al.: Should bowel preparation, antifoaming agents, or prokinetics be used before video capsule endoscopy? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26: 137–145.

  • 139

    Belsey J, Crosta C, Epstein O, et al.: Meta-analysis: efficacy of small bowel preparation for small bowel video capsule endoscopy. Curr Med Res Opin 2012; 28: 1883–1890.

  • 140

    Brotz C, Nandi N, Conn M, et al.: A validation study of 3 grading systems to evaluate small-bowel cleansing for wireless capsule endoscopy: a quantitative index, a qualitative evaluation, and an overall adequacy assessment. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 69: 262–270.

  • 141

    Park SC, Keum B, Hyun JJ, et al.: A novel cleansing score system for capsule endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16: 875–880.

  • 142

    Calabrese C, Liguori G, Gionchetti P, et al.: Obscure gastrointestinal bleeding: single centre experience of capsule endoscopy. Intern Emerg Med 2013; 8: 681–687.

  • 143

    Saurin JC, Delvaux M, Gaudin JL, et al.: Diagnostic value of endoscopic capsule in patients with obscure digestive bleeding: blinded comparison with video push-enteroscopy. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 576–584.

  • 144

    Rondonotti E, Spada C, Adler S, et al.: Small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy for diagnosis and treatment of small-bowel disorders: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Technical Review. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 423–446.

  • 145

    Fernandez-Urien I, Carretero C, Gonzalez B, et al.: Incidence, clinical outcomes, and therapeutic approaches of capsule endoscopy-related adverse events in a large study population. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2015; 107: 745–752.

  • 146

    Rondonotti E, Soncini M, Girelli C, et al.: Small bowel capsule endoscopy in clinical practice: a multicenter 7-year survey. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010; 22: 1380–1386.

Submit Your Manuscript

 

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Oláh, Attila

Editorial Board

  • DR. BÁLINT ANDRÁS
  • DR. BEZSILLA JÁNOS
  • DR. BOROS MIHÁLY
  • DR. BURSICS ATTILA
  • DR. DAMJANOVICH LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. ENTZ LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. GULYÁS GUSZTÁV
  • DR. HARSÁNYI LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. HORVÁTH ÖRS PÉTER
  • DR. ISTVÁN GÁBOR
  • DR. KECSKÉS LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. KÓBORI LÁSZLÓ
  • DR. KUPCSULIK PÉTER
  • DR. LÁZÁR GYÖRGY
  • DR. LESTÁR BÉLA
  • DR. MÁTRAI ZOLTÁN
  • DR. MOHOS ELEMÉR
  • DR. MOLNÁR F. TAMÁS
  • DR. ONDREJKA PÁL
  • DR. PAPP ANDRÁS
  • DR. RÉNYI-VÁMOS FERENC
  • DR. ROMICS LÁSZLÓ JR.
  • DR. SÓTONYI PÉTER
  • DR. SZIJÁRTÓ ATTILA
  • DR. SZŰCS ÁKOS
  • DR. VEREBÉLY TIBOR
  • DR. VERECZKEI ANDRÁS

Petz Aladár County Teaching Hospital, Surgery
Vasvári Pál út 2. H-9024 Győr, Hungary
Phone: +36 96 503 320 --- Fax: +36 96 507 936
E-mail: olaha@petz.gyor.hu

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Index Medicus
  • PubMed Central

 

2020  
CrossRef Documents 37
WoS Cites 45
Wos H-index 8
Days from submission to acceptance 60
Days from acceptance to publication 63

 

2019  
WoS
Cites
63
CrossRef
Documents
31

 

Magyar Sebészet
Publication Model Hybrid
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 900 EUR/article
Printed Color Illustrations 40 EUR (or 10 000 HUF) + VAT / piece
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription fee 2021 Online subsscription: 276 EUR / 372 USD
Print + online subscription: 320 EUR / 400 USD
Subscription fee 2022 Online subsscription: 282 EUR / 380 USD
Print + online subscription: 328 EUR / 450 USD
Subscription Information

Online subscribers are entitled access to all back issues published by Akadémiai Kiadó for each title for the duration of the subscription, as well as Online First content for the subscribed content.

Purchase per Title Individual articles are sold on the displayed price.

Magyar Sebészet
Language Hungarian
Size B5
Year of
Foundation
1947
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 74
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Magyar Sebész Társaság -- Hungarian Surgical Society
Founder's
Address
H-1082 Budapest, Hungary Üllői út 78.
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 0025-0295 (Print)
ISSN 1789-4301 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2021 0 0 0
Jul 2021 0 0 0
Aug 2021 0 0 0
Sep 2021 0 54 31
Oct 2021 0 93 106
Nov 2021 0 43 55
Dec 2021 0 0 8