Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is considered a chronic condition characterized by mucosal or transmural inflammation in the gastrointestinal tract. Endoscopic diagnosis and surveillance in patients with IBD have become crucial. In addition, endoscopy is a useful modality in estimation and evaluation of the disease, treatment results, and efficacy of treatment delivery and surveillance. In relation to these aspects, endoscopic disease activity has been commonly estimated in clinical practices and trials. At present, many endoscopic indices of ulcerative colitis have been introduced, including the Truelove and Witts Endoscopy Index, Baron Index, Powell-Tuck Index, Sutherland Index, Mayo Clinic Endoscopic Sub-Score, Rachmilewitz Index, Modified Baron Index, Endoscopic Activity Index, Ulcerative Colitis Endoscopic Index of Severity, Ulcerative Colitis Colonoscopic Index of Severity, and Modified Mayo Endoscopic Score. Endoscopic indices have been also suggested for Crohn's disease, such as the Crohn's Disease Endoscopic Index of Severity, Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease, and Rutgeerts Postoperative Endoscopic Index. However, most endoscopic indices have not been validated owing to the complexity of their parameters and inter-observer variations. Therefore, a chronological approach for understanding the various endoscopic indices relating to IBD is needed to improve the management.
Background/AimsThe Internet is the main resource for health-related information. The incidence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is rapidly increasing in Asian countries. However, the quality of websites for IBD available in this region has not been evaluated. We aimed to evaluate the quality of the information on IBD obtained from Korean websites.MethodsUsing the terms “Crohn’s disease” or “ulcerative colitis,” websites were selected from those obtained with the three most renowned search engines in Korea; 60 websites from the results of each engine were chosen. The websites were classified into institutional, commercial, charitable, supportive, or alternative medicine types according to the characteristics of each site. The websites were evaluated regarding content quality using the validated DISCERN instrument and the Journal of the American Medical Association benchmarks.ResultsThe median score of all the websites according to the DISCERN instrument was 32 (interquartile range, 25 to 47) out of 80, indicating an insufficient overall quality of information. The alternative medicine sites scored the lowest, whereas the institutional sites scored the highest (p < 0.05). The quality of information was significantly different among the search engines (p = 0.028). The rank of appearance in the Google search result did not correlate with the quality level of the information.ConclusionsThe quality of information on the Internet regarding IBD varied according to the website type and search engine. Accreditation and quality assurance systems should be implemented for websites to ensure that the public and patients obtain accurate information on IBD.
Background/Aims: To date, no reports have compared the diagnostic efficacy of narrow-band imaging (NBI) and i-scan for the histologic prediction of intermediate-to-large colorectal polyps. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of NBI and i-scan in predicting histology, and their inter-/intra-observer agreement.Methods: We performed a prospective, randomized study that included 66 patients (NBI, n=33 vs. i-scan, n=33) with colorectal polyps (size >10 mm but <50 mm) who underwent colonoscopic resection. During the procedure, three endoscopists documented their prediction using the Japan NBI Expert Team (JNET) classification. Two months after study completion, the endoscopists reviewed still images and video clips for analysis.Results: The overall diagnostic accuracies in the NBI and i-scan groups were 73.7% (73/99) and 75.8% (75/99), respectively, and there was no statistical significance between the two groups (p=0.744). The JNET classification as applied to NBI and i-scan showed substantial inter-observer agreement (NBI κ-value 0.612, p=0.001 vs. i-scan κ-value 0.662, p=0.002). Additionally, the κ-values of intra-observer agreement were in the range of 0.385–0.660 with NBI and 0.364–0.741 with i-scan.Conclusions: NBI and i-scan have similar diagnostic accuracies for the histologic prediction of intermediate-to-large colorectal polyps. Furthermore, the inter-/intra-observer agreement was acceptable for both modalities when the JNET classification was applied.
Background/Aims: The intensities of injection pain resulting from the use of long-and mediumchain triglyceride (LCT/MCT) propofol and conventional LCT propofol during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) have yet to be compared. We aimed to determine the pain intensity caused by different formulations of propofol and to evaluate the formulation that would be preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next procedure.Methods: This study was a single-center, randomized, controlled, and double-blind trial. Pain intensity was estimated 30 seconds after propofol injection by an examiner who was blinded to the group assignment using a numeric (0-10) pain rating scale (NPRS). After 1 week, the patients were asked whether they could recall the pain and were willing to receive the same agent for their next EGD.Results: One hundred twenty-nine patients were randomly assigned to LCT/MCT or LCT group. Although there was no significant difference in pain incidence between the LCT/MCT and LCT groups (52.9% vs 65.6%, p=0.156), the pain intensity was significantly lower in the LCT/MCT group (NPRS median [interquartile range]; 1 (0-2) vs 2 (0-5), p=0.005). After 1 week, fewer patients in the LCT/MCT group recalled the pain (19.1% vs 63.9%, p<0.001) and more patients in the LCT/MCT group were more willing to use the same agent for their next procedure (86.8% vs 72.1%, p=0.048) than in the LCT group. Conclusions:LCT/MCT propofol significantly reduced injection pain intensity compared to LCT propofol during EGD and preferred by patients as a sedative agent during their next EGD.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.