In prospective randomized trial, we found endoscopic treatment with OTSCs to be superior to standard therapy with TTSCs for patients with recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding. STING Study, Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT1836900.

Background Mobile health apps (MHA) have the potential to improve health care. The commercial MHA market is rapidly growing, but the content and quality of available MHA are unknown. Instruments for the assessment of the quality and content of MHA are highly needed. The Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) is one of the most widely used tools to evaluate the quality of MHA. Only few validation studies investigated its metric quality. No study has evaluated the construct validity and concurrent validity. Objective This study evaluates the construct validity, concurrent validity, reliability, and objectivity, of the MARS. Methods Data was pooled from 15 international app quality reviews to evaluate the metric properties of the MARS. The MARS measures app quality across four dimensions: engagement, functionality, aesthetics and information quality. Construct validity was evaluated by assessing related competing confirmatory models by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Non-centrality (RMSEA), incremental (CFI, TLI) and residual (SRMR) fit indices were used to evaluate the goodness of fit. As a measure of concurrent validity, the correlations to another quality assessment tool (ENLIGHT) were investigated. Reliability was determined using Omega. Objectivity was assessed by intra-class correlation. Results In total, MARS ratings from 1,299 MHA covering 15 different health domains were included. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed a bifactor model with a general factor and a factor for each dimension (RMSEA = 0.074, TLI = 0.922, CFI = 0.940, SRMR = 0.059). Reliability was good to excellent (Omega 0.79 to 0.93). Objectivity was high (ICC = 0.82). MARS correlated with ENLIGHT (ps<.05). Conclusion The metric evaluation of the MARS demonstrated its suitability for the quality assessment. As such, the MARS could be used to make the quality of MHA transparent to health care stakeholders and patients. Future studies could extend the present findings by investigating the re-test reliability and predictive validity of the MARS.

INTRODUCTION: Endoscopic full-thickness resection (EFTR) is a powerful option for resection of colorectal lesions not amenable to conventional endoscopic resection. The full-thickness resection device (FTRD) allows clip-assisted EFTR with a single-step technique. We report on results of a large nationwide FTRD registry. METHODS: The “German colonic FTRD registry” was created to further assess efficacy and safety of the FTRD System after approval in Europe. Data were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: Sixty-five centers contributed 1,178 colorectal FTRD procedures. Indications for EFTR were difficult adenomas (67.1%), early carcinomas (18.4%), subepithelial tumors (6.8%), and diagnostic EFTR (1.3%). Mean lesion size was 15 × 15 mm and most lesions were pretreated endoscopically (54.1%). Technical success was 88.2% and R0 resection was achieved in 80.0%. R0 resection was significantly higher for subepithelial tumor compared with that for other lesions. No difference in R0 resection was found for smaller vs larger lesions or for colonic vs rectal procedures. Adverse events occurred in 12.1% (3.1% major events and 2.0% required surgical treatment). Endoscopic follow-up was available in 58.0% and showed residual/recurrent lesions in 13.5%, which could be managed endoscopically in most cases (77.2%). DISCUSSION: To date, this is the largest study of colorectal EFTR using the FTRD System. The study demonstrated favorable efficacy and safety for “difficult-to-resect” colorectal lesions and confirms results of previous studies in a large “real-world” setting. Further studies are needed to compare EFTR with other advanced resection techniques and evaluate long-term outcome.

No abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS:Sufficient bowel preparation is crucial for successful screening and surveillance colonoscopy. However, rates of inadequate preparation are still high. We investigated the effects of reinforced patient education using a smartphone application software (APP) for colonoscopy preparation in participants in a CRC screening program. METHODS:We performed a prospective, endoscopist-blinded study of 500 patients undergoing split-dose bowel preparation for CRC screening or surveillance colonoscopies at multiple centers in Germany, from November 2017 through January 2019. Participants (n [ 500) were given oral and written instructions during their initial appointment and then randomly assigned (1:1) to groups that received reinforced education starting 3 days before the colonoscopy (APP group) or no further education (controls). The primary outcome was quality of bowel preparation according to the Boston bowel preparation scale. Secondary outcomes included polyp and adenoma detection rates, compliance with low-fiber diet, split-dose laxative intake, perceived discomfort from the preparation procedure. RESULTS:The mean Boston bowel preparation scale score was significantly higher in the APP-group (7.6 -0.1) than in the control group (6.7 -0.1) (P < .0001). The percentage of patients with insufficient bowel preparation was significantly lower in the APP group (8%) than in the control group (17%) (P [ .0023). The adenoma detection rate was significantly higher in the APP group (35% vs 27% in controls) (P [ .0324). Use of the APP was accompanied by a lower level of non-compliance with correct laxative intake (P [.0080) and diet instructions (P [ .0089). The APP group reported a lower level of discomfort during preparation (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS:In a randomized trial, reinforcing patient education with a smartphone application optimized bowel preparation in the 3 days before colonoscopy, increasing bowel cleanliness, adenoma detection, and compliance in patients undergoing CRC screening or surveillance. ClinicalTrials. gov no: NCT03290157