Search

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient pre

INTRODUCTION: Chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) is a common disorder associated with significant impairment in quality of life. This clinical practice guideline, jointly developed by the American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology, aims to inform clinicians and patients by providing evidence-based practice recommendations for the pharmacological treatment of CIC in adults. METHODS: The American Gastroenterological Association and the American College of Gastroenterology formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that conducted systematic reviews of the following agents: fiber, osmotic laxatives (polyethylene glycol, magnesium oxide, lactulose), stimulant laxatives (bisacodyl, sodium picosulfate, senna), secretagogues (lubiprostone, linaclotide, plecanatide), and serotonin type 4 agonist (prucalopride). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to assess the certainty of evidence for each intervention. The Evidence to Decision framework was used to develop clinical recommendations based on the balance between the desirable and undesirable effects, patient values, costs, and health equity considerations. RESULTS: The panel agreed on 10 recommendations for the pharmacological management of CIC in adults. Based on available evidence, the panel made strong recommendations for the use of polyethylene glycol, sodium picosulfate, linaclotide, plecanatide, and prucalopride for CIC in adults. Conditional recommendations were made for the use of fiber, lactulose, senna, magnesium oxide, and lubiprostone. DISCUSSION: This document provides a comprehensive outline of the various over-the-counter and prescription pharmacological agents available for the treatment of CIC. The guidelines are meant to provide a framework for approaching the management of CIC; clinical providers should engage in shared decision making based on patient pre

In 2021, the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated their recommendation, stating that individuals ages 45-49 should initiate screening for colorectal cancer. Since several screening strategies are recommended, making a shared decision involves including an individual’s preferences. Few studies have included individuals under age 50. In this study, we use a multicriteria decision analysis technique called the Analytic Hierarchy Process to explore preferences for screening strategies and evaluate whether preferences vary by age. Participants evaluated a hierarchy with 3 decision alternatives (colonoscopy, fecal immunochemical test, and computed tomography colonography), 3 criteria (test effectiveness, the screening plan, and features of the test) and 7 sub-criteria. We used the linear fit method to calculate consistency ratios and the eigenvector method for group preferences. We conducted sensitivity analysis to assess whether results are robust to change and tested differences in preferences by participant variables using chi-square and analysis of variance. Of the 579 individuals surveyed, 556 (96%) provided complete responses to the AHP portion of the survey. Of these, 247 participants gave responses consistent enough (CR < 0.18) to be included in the final analysis. Participants that were either white or have lower health literacy were more likely to be excluded due to inconsistency. Colonoscopy was the preferred strategy in those < 50 and fecal immunochemical test was preferred by those over age 50 (p = 0.002). These results were consistent when we restricted analysis to individuals ages 45-55 (p = 0.011). Participants rated test effectiveness as the most important criteria for making their decision (weight = 0.555). Sensitivity analysis showed our results were robust to shifts in criteria and sub-criteria weights. We reveal potential differences in preferences for screening strategies by age that could influence the adoption of screening programs

Objectives: Clear communication of systematic review findings will help readers and decision makers. We built on previous work to develop an approach that improves the clarity of statements to convey findings and that draws on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Study Design and Setting: We conducted workshops including 80 attendants and a survey of 110 producers and users of systematic reviews. We calculated acceptability of statements and revised the wording of those that were unacceptable to >= 40% of participants. Results: Most participants agreed statements should be based on size of effect and certainty of evidence. Statements for low, moderate and high certainty evidence were acceptable to >60%. Key guidance, for example, includes statements for high, moderate and low certainty for a large effect on intervention x as: x results in a large reduction...; x likely results in a large reduction...; x may result in a large reduction..., respectively. Conclusions: Producers and users of systematic reviews found statements to communicate findings combining size and certainty of an effect acceptable. This article provides GRADE guidance and a wording template to formulate statements in systematic reviews and other decision tools. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Objectives: Clear communication of systematic review findings will help readers and decision makers. We built on previous work to develop an approach that improves the clarity of statements to convey findings and that draws on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Study Design and Setting: We conducted workshops including 80 attendants and a survey of 110 producers and users of systematic reviews. We calculated acceptability of statements and revised the wording of those that were unacceptable to >= 40% of participants. Results: Most participants agreed statements should be based on size of effect and certainty of evidence. Statements for low, moderate and high certainty evidence were acceptable to >60%. Key guidance, for example, includes statements for high, moderate and low certainty for a large effect on intervention x as: x results in a large reduction...; x likely results in a large reduction...; x may result in a large reduction..., respectively. Conclusions: Producers and users of systematic reviews found statements to communicate findings combining size and certainty of an effect acceptable. This article provides GRADE guidance and a wording template to formulate statements in systematic reviews and other decision tools. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Shahnaz Sultan,1–4 Melissa R Partin,1,2 Phalgoon Shah,5 Jennifer LeLaurin,4 Ivette Magaly Freytes,4 Chandylen L Nightingale,6 Susan F Fesperman,4 Barbara A Curbow,7 Rebecca J Beyth3,4,8 1Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Health Care System, 2Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 3Department of Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, 4Center of Innovation on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL, 5Department of Medicine, Tripler Army Medical Center, Honolulu, HI, 6Department of Social Sciences and Health Policy, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem NC, 7Department of Community and Behavioral Health, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 8Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health System, Gainesville, FL, USA Background: A recommendation to undergo a colonoscopy, an invasive procedure that requires commitment and motivation, planning (scheduling and finding a driver) and preparation (diet restriction and laxative consumption), may be uniquely challenging for individuals with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). This qualitative study aimed to describe the barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy experienced by such patients.Materials and methods: Semistructured focus groups were conducted with male Veterans who were scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy and either failed to complete the procedure or completed the examination. Focus group recordings were transcribed and analyzed by an inductive grounded approach using constant comparative analysis.Results: Forty-four individuals aged 51–83 years participated in this study (23 adherent and 21 nonadherent). Participants had an average of 7.4 chronic conditions (range 2–14). The five most common chronic conditions were hypertension (75%), hyperlip