Search

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i. e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures for both small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, where performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time that small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at center and endoscopist level: 1: Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 2: Antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 3: Bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 4: Tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85 %); 5: Appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95 %); 6: Bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90 %); 7: Post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10 %). 8: Adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90 %).This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive: it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses roundtable in which current or former women parliamentarians including Cathy Bennett, Joanne Bernard and Rochelle Squires discusses the harassment they have encountered. Topics discussed include views of Bennett on social media bullying, harassment or threats that goes well beyond what most people would deem to be fair, views of Bernard on how social media, has escalated this abuse particularly against female politicians and views of Squires on the same.

Background Fewer than 50% of lobectomies for lung cancer are performed using thoracoscopic (video-assisted thoracic surgery [VATS]) techniques. This situation could be mitigated through the use of simulation training. Using a Delphi process, this study identified essential components of VATS right upper lobectomy most amenable to focused simulation. Methods Experienced VATS surgeons were randomly selected for participation. A custom Internet interface permitted anonymous voting, commenting, and the ability to modify and propose new components. A component was declared essential when 80% or more of the study participants agreed or strongly agreed on this designation. Participants rated each component for difficulty and then voted for components that were most appropriate for simulation. Results Thirty-five surgeons initially agreed to participate, and 30 completed the study. Twenty-four components were identified after three votes, and 21 of these components were considered essential. Procedural components that scored the highest for overall difficulty and that were deemed most appropriate for focused simulation included division of the truncus anterior, division of the posterior segmental artery, division of the upper lobe vein, and division of the upper lobe bronchus. Conclusions A Delphi approach enabled surgeons of disparate training backgrounds and experience to agree on essential components of a VATS lobectomy. There was agreement on the components that are most appropriate for simulation. These findings can be used to design simulation exercises for VATS lobectomy by using targeted anatomy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at a center and endoscopist level: 1 Rate of adequate bowel preparation (minimum standard 90 %); 2 Cecal intubation rate (minimum standard 90 %); 3 Adenoma detection rate (minimum standard 25 %); 4 Appropriate polypectomy technique (minimum standard 80 %); 5 Complication rate (minimum standard not set); 6 Patient experience (minimum standard not set); 7 Appropriate post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations (minimum standard not set). Other identified performance measures have been listed as less relevant based on an assessment of their importance, scientific acceptability, feasibility, usability, and comparison to competing measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2-i) are a novel drug class for the treatment of diabetes. We aimed at describing the maximal benefits and risks associated with SGLT2-i for patients with type 2 diabetes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data Sources and Study Selection: We included double-blinded, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SGLT2-i administered in the highest approved therapeutic doses (canagliflozin 300 mg/day, dapagliflozin 10 mg/day, and empagliflozin 25 mg/day) for ≥12 weeks. Comparison groups could receive placebo or oral antidiabetic drugs (OAD) including metformin, sulphonylureas (SU), or dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4-i). Trials were identified through electronic databases and extensive manual searches. Primary outcomes were glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, serious adverse events, death, severe hypoglycaemia, ketoacidosis and CVD. Secondary outcomes were fasting plasma glucose, body weight, blood pressure, heart rate, lipids, liver function tests, creatinine and adverse events including infections. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results: Meta-analysis of 34 RCTs with 9,154 patients showed that SGLT2-i reduced HbA1c compared with placebo (mean difference -0.69%, 95% confidence interval -0.75 to -0.62%). We downgraded the evidence to ‘low quality’ due to variability and evidence of publication bias (P = 0.015). Canagliflozin was associated with the largest reduction in HbA1c (-0.85%, -0.99% to -0.71%). There were no differences between SGLT2-i and placebo for serious adverse events. SGLT2-i increased the risk of urinary and genital tract infections and increased serum creatinine, and exerted beneficial effects on bodyweight, blood pressure, lipids and alanine aminotransferase (moderate to low quality evidence). Analysis of 12 RCTs found a beneficial effect of SGLT2-i on HbA1c compared with OAD (-0.20%, -0.28 to -0.13%; moderate quality evidence). Conclusion: This review includes a large number of patients with type 2 diabetes and found that SGLT2-i reduces HbA1c with a notable increased risk in non-serious adverse events. The analyses may overestimate the intervention benefit due bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:Parent–infant psychotherapy (PIP) is a psychodynamic intervention with parent–infant dyads, designed to address regulatory disturbances in infancy and problems in the parent–infant relationship. Aims:This systematic review aimed to examine whether PIP is effective in improving the parent–infant relationship or other aspects of parent or infant functioning. Methods:A systematic review was undertaken. Electronic databases were searched for randomised controlled trials in which participants had been allocated to a PIP intervention or control group/other treatment. Results:Eight studies were identified that provided data comparing parent–infant psychotherapy with a no-treatment control group (four studies) or comparing PIP with other kinds of treatment (four studies). Meta-analyses indicated that parents who received PIP were more likely to have an infant who was rated as being securely attached to the parent after the intervention; however, there were no significant differences in studies comparing outcomes of PIP with another model of treatment. Conclusions:Although PIP appears to be a promising method of improving infant attachment security, there is inconclusive evidence of its benefits in terms of other outcomes, and no evidence to show that it is more effective than other interventions for parents and infants. Many studies had limitations in their design or implementation, and findings must be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the quality improvement initiative of the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) for the identification of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGI) performance measures. Topics include the aim of the UGI working group, the performance measures accepted for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, and the use of Delphi process in distinguishing the key performance measures.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology (UEG) have a vision to create a thriving community of endoscopy services across Europe, collaborating with each other to provide high quality, safe, accurate, patient-centered and accessible endoscopic care. Whilst the boundaries of what can be achieved by advanced endoscopy are continually expanding, we believe that one of the most fundamental steps to achieving our goal is to raise the quality of everyday endoscopy. The development of robust, consensus- and evidence-based key performance measures is the first step in this vision.ESGE and UEG have identified quality of endoscopy as a major priority. This paper explains the rationale behind the ESGE Quality Improvement Initiative and describes the processes that were followed. We recommend that all units develop mechanisms for audit and feedback of endoscopist and service performance using the ESGE performance measures that will be published in future issues of this journal over the next year. We urge all endoscopists and endoscopy services to prioritize quality and to ensure that these performance measures are implemented and monitored at a local level, so that we can provide the highest possible care for our patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES:Barrett's esophagus (BE) is a common premalignant lesion for which surveillance is recommended. This strategy is limited by considerable variations in clinical practice. We conducted an international, multidisciplinary, systematic search and evidence-based review of BE and provided consensus recommendations for clinical use in patients with nondysplastic, indefinite, and low-grade dysplasia (LGD).METHODS:We defined the scope, proposed statements, and searched electronic databases, yielding 20,558 publications that were screened, selected online, and formed the evidence base. We used a Delphi consensus process, with an 80% agreement threshold, using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to categorize the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.RESULTS:In total, 80% of respondents agreed with 55 of 127 statements in the final voting rounds. Population endoscopic screening is not recommended and screening should target only very high-risk cases of males aged over 60 years with chronic uncontrolled reflux. A new international definition of BE was agreed upon. For any degree of dysplasia, at least two specialist gastrointestinal (GI) pathologists are required. Risk factors for cancer include male gender, length of BE, and central obesity. Endoscopic resection should be used for visible, nodular areas. Surveillance is not recommended for <5 years of life expectancy. Management strategies for indefinite dysplasia (IND) and LGD were identified, including a de-escalation strategy for lower-risk patients and escalation to intervention with follow-up for higher-risk patients.CONCLUSIONS:In this uniquely large consensus process in gastroenterology, we made key clinical recommendations for the escalation/de-escalation of BE in clinical practice. We made strong recommendations for the prioritization of future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fatigue and cachexia are common symptoms of advanced disease that have a significant impact on quality of life for palliative care clients. Management of cachexia and fatigue is often overlooked, but growing understanding of the multidimensional nature of fatigue and muscle wasting has led to interest in a model of care based on multimodal therapy that has been successfully implemented in specialized multidisciplinary hospital-based clinics in the oncology/palliative care setting. This article reports on an innovative incorporation of features of this model into a client-centred, interdisciplinary programme that aims to manage the effects of cachexia and fatigue and to improve quality of life for palliative care clients in their home setting. This Cachexia and Fatigue Management Programme (CFMP) involves the use of an anti-inflammatory agent, high protein intake, and an individually tailored resistance exercise regimen to counteract muscle wasting and fatigue. The article provides an overview of the role of multimodal therapies in the management of cachexia and fatigue before moving on to discuss the development of the CFMP, its features, and potential benefits for palliative care clients, caregivers, and health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A correction to the article "BOB CAT: A Large-Scale Review and Delphi Consensus for Management of Barrett's Esophagus With No Dysplasia, Indefinite for, or Low-Grade Dysplasia" that was published in the journal in 2015 is presented.

Objective: To evaluate the acceptability and relevance of the Maximizing your Patient Education Skills (MPES) course and to determine whether it significantly improved knowledge regarding patient education (PE) theory, self-assessed PE competencies, and PE skills using case based vignettes. Methods: 1-Group, multi-site, pre–post-intervention. Participants completed a pre-assessment (T1), participated in the 4-h MPES course, and then a 3-month post-assessment (T2). A focus group was conducted with sub-set of participants. Results: 98 (75%) of participants completed both time points. Participants were highly satisfied with MPES and found it to be relevant. Results showed that MPES had a significant impact on all of our outcome measures. Conclusion: Findings from this study show that oncology HCPs knowledge of patient education theory, self-assessed competencies and skills can improve after participating in a brief problem-focused and interactive workshop. Practice implications: Given the evidence that well-planned education and support can contribute to a number of positive health outcomes and the evidence that HCPs may lack the skills to teach and support patients and their families effectively, these results suggest that MPES course may be of value to oncology professionals. Efforts to further develop this course include exploring alternative funding models and using different learning platforms. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The European Union (EU) Water Framework Directive depends, for effective implementation, on Member States (MSs) agreeing to a concept of the unimpacted “reference” state, which will then provide the “expected” value in Ecological Quality Ratio (EQR) calculations. Reference assemblages of organism groups will, in turn, vary, due to geological, hydrological, climatic, physicochemical and biological factors. Member States tackle this by establishing “types” which share common characteristics. However, for the purposes of ensuring consistent application, broad transboundary types were also established within five Geographical Intercalibration Groups (GIGs, referred to here as “regions”) as part of the EU''s intercalibration exercise. In this paper, we evaluate these types using river diatom assemblages and also provide reference threshold values for two common metrics used in pan-European diatom assessments. A database was assembled, representing 14 EU Member States from Ireland and Portugal in the West, to Estonia and Cyprus in the East, in order to explore biogeographical patterns in assemblages unaffected by anthropogenic pressures. Multivariate analyses were used to examine this pattern and its relationship with geographic, typological and abiotic parameters. After taxonomic harmonisation, NMDS ordination of samples indicated weak differences in assemblage composition among regions. ANOSIM analyses, in turn, indicated that MS was the best factor to group similar samples whereas alkalinity, recognised as the primary environmental variable structuring diatom communities, although significant, explained less variability in the dataset. This, we believe, reflects the importance of methodological factors other than taxonomy (e.g. counting protocol, sample season) that may be constant within a MS but which vary between MSs. When two diatom metrics, the TI and IPS, were applied to the data, differences in the distribution of the metric scores between MS were generally not statistically significant even though some differences between regions were apparent. A trend of increasing values of TI (decreasing values of IPS) was observed in the sequence: Nordic

Abstract: One objective of the European Union (EU)''s Water Framework Directive (WFD: Directive 2000/60/EC) is for all European surface waters to achieve ‘good status’ by 2015. In support of this objective, the EU has facilitated an intercalibration exercise to ensure harmonized definitions of the status of water bodies, reflecting the deviation of their properties (mainly biotic assemblages) from a minimally disturbed state, termed the “reference condition”. One of the major challenges of the WFD has been to find common approaches for defining reference conditions and to define the level of anthropogenic intervention allowed in reference sites. In this paper we describe how river reference sites were selected in the Central-Baltic region of Europe. A list of pressure criteria was provided and 14 Member States (MSs) categorized each criterion according to the method (i.e. measured, field inspection, etc.) used for reference site screening. Additionally, reference land-use and water-chemistry thresholds were agreed among countries in order to base reference site selection on objective criteria. For land-use criteria, a reference threshold and a rejection threshold were established. Sites with all criteria below the reference threshold were considered to be reference sites; sites having most criteria below the reference threshold and only some parameters between the reference and rejection threshold were “possible reference sites”. These sites were retained only after carefully checking the cumulative effects of the pressures using local expertise, and a posteriori water-chemistry evaluation was necessary. In general, the most widespread method for defining a reference site was the measurement of pressures, followed by field inspections and expert judgment. However, some major pressures (e.g. hydromorphological alteration) were evaluated in a number of different ways (e.g. measured, field inspection, expert judgment). Our meta-analyses reveal a need to reinforce standardization in the application of pressure criteria by Member States. The pressure criteria identified in this exercise should be refined and tested with biological data to help in the further validation of minimally disturbed sites (i.e. the WFD “reference condition”) and to provide a firm foundation for ecological status assessment. This in turn would ensure that there is pan-European comparability when evaluating the achievement of environmental objectives. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Lupus erythematosus is an autoimmune disease with significant morbidity and mortality. Cutaneous disease in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is common. Many interventions are used to treat SLE with varying efficacy, risks, and benefits., Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE., Search Methods: We searched the following databases up to June 2019: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Wiley Interscience Online Library, and Biblioteca Virtual em Saude (Virtual Health Library). We updated our search in September 2020, but these results have not yet been fully incorporated., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for cutaneous disease in SLE compared with placebo, another intervention, no treatment, or different doses of the same intervention. We did not evaluate trials of cutaneous lupus in people without a diagnosis of SLE., Data Collection and Analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were complete and partial clinical response. Secondary outcomes included reduction (or change) in number of clinical flares; and severe and minor adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence., Main Results: Sixty-one RCTs, involving 11,232 participants, reported 43 different interventions. Trials predominantly included women from outpatient clinics; the mean age range of participants was 20 to 40 years. Twenty-five studies reported baseline severity, and 22 studies included participants with moderate to severe cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE); duration of CLE was not well reported. Studies were conducted mainly in multi-centre settings. Most often treatment duration was 12 months. Risk of bias was highest for the domain of reporting bias, followed by performance/detection bias. We identified too few studies for meta-analysis for most comparisons. We limited this abstract to main comparisons (all administered orally) and outcomes. We did not identify clinical trials of other commonly used treatments, such as topical corticosteroids, that reported complete or partial clinical response or numbers of clinical flares. Complete clinical response Studies comparing oral hydroxychloroquine against placebo did not report complete clinical response. Chloroquine may increase complete clinical response at 12 months' follow-up compared with placebo (absence of skin lesions) (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95 to 2.61; 1 study, 24 participants; low-quality evidence). There may be little to no difference between methotrexate and chloroquine in complete clinical response (skin rash resolution) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 1 study, 25 participants; low-quality evidence). Methotrexate may be superior to placebo with regard to complete clinical response (absence of malar/discoid rash) at 6 months' follow-up (RR 3.57, 95% CI 1.63 to 7.84; 1 study, 41 participants; low-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be little to no difference between azathioprine and ciclosporin in complete clinical response (malar rash resolution) (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.52; 1 study, 89 participants; low-quality evidence). Partial clinical response Partial clinical response was reported for only one key comparison: hydroxychloroquine may increase partial clinical response at 12 months compared to placebo, but the 95% CI indicates that hydroxychloroquine may make no difference or may decrease response (RR 7.00, 95% CI 0.41 to 120.16; 20 pregnant participants, 1 trial; low-quality evidence). Clinical flares Clinical flares were reported for only two key comparisons: hydroxychloroquine is probably superior to placebo at 6 months' follow-up for reducing clinical flares (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.89; 1 study, 47 participants; moderate-quality evidence). At 12 months' follow-up, there may be no difference between methotrexate and placebo, but the 95% CI indicates there may be more or fewer flares with methotrexate (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.83; 1 study, 86 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events Data for adverse events were limited and were inconsistently reported, but hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine, and methotrexate have well-documented adverse effects including gastrointestinal symptoms, liver problems, and retinopathy for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine and teratogenicity during pregnancy for methotrexate., Authors' Conclusions: Evidence supports the commonly-used treatment hydroxychloroquine, and there is also evidence supporting chloroquine and methotrexate for treating cutaneous disease in SLE. Evidence is limited due to the small number of studies reporting key outcomes. Evidence for most key outcomes was low or moderate quality, meaning findings should be interpreted with caution. Head-to-head intervention trials designed to detect differences in efficacy between treatments for specific CLE subtypes are needed. Thirteen further trials are awaiting classification and have not yet been incorporated in this review; they may alter the review conclusions., (Copyright © 2021 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Barrett's oesophagus is one of the most common pre-malignant lesions in the world. Currently the mainstay of therapy is surgical management of advanced cancer but this has improved the five-year survival very little since the 1980s. As a consequence, improved survival relies on early detection through endoscopic surveillance programmes. Success of this strategy relies on the fact that late-stage pre-malignant lesions or very early cancers can be cured by intervention. Currently there is considerable controversy over which method is best: that is conventional open surgery or endotherapy (techniques involving endoscopy)., Objectives: We used data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the effectiveness of endotherapies compared with surgery in people with Barrett's oesophagus, those with early neoplasias (defined as high-grade dysplasia (HGD) and those with early cancer (defined as carcinoma in-situ, superficially invasive, early cancer or superficial cancer T-1m (T1-a) and T-1sm (T1-b))., Search Methods: We used the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy to identify RCTs in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, EBMR, Controlled Trials mRCT and ISRCTN, and LILACS, in July and August 2008. The searches were updated in 2009 and again in April 2012., Selection Criteria: Types of studies: RCTs comparing endotherapies with surgery in the treatment of high-grade dysplasia or early cancer. All cellular types of cancer were included (i.e. adenocarcinomas, squamous cell carcinomas and more unusual types) but will be discussed separately., Types of Participants: patients of any age and either gender with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of early neoplasia (HGD and early cancer) in Barrett's or squamous lined oesophagus. Types of interventions; endotherapies (the intervention) compared with surgery (the control), all with curative intent., Data Collection and Analysis: Reports of studies that meet the inclusion criteria for this review would have been analysed using the methods detailed in Appendix 9., Main Results: We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria. In total we excluded 13 studies that were not RCTs but that compared surgery and endotherapies., Authors' Conclusions: This Cochrane review has indicated that there are no RCTs to compare management options in this vital area, therefore trials should be undertaken as a matter of urgency. The problems with such randomised methods are standardising surgery and endotherapies in all sites, standardising histopathology in all centres, assessing which patients are fit or unfit for surgery and making sure there are relevant outcomes for the study (i.e. long-term survival (over five or more years)) and no progression of HGD., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) together with the United European Gastroenterology (UEG) recently developed a short list of performance measures for small-bowel endoscopy (i.e. small-bowel capsule endoscopy and device-assisted enteroscopy) with the final goal of providing endoscopy services across Europe with a tool for quality improvement. Six key performance measures both for small-bowel capsule endoscopy and for device-assisted enteroscopy were selected for inclusion, with the intention being that practice at both a service and endoscopist level should be evaluated against them. Other performance measures were considered to be less relevant, based on an assessment of their overall importance, scientific acceptability, and feasibility. Unlike lower and upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, for which performance measures had already been identified, this is the first time small-bowel endoscopy quality measures have been proposed.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a list of key performance measures for endoscopy services. We recommend that these performance measures be adopted by all endoscopy services across Europe. The measures include those related to the leadership, organization, and delivery of the service, as well as those associated with the patient journey. Each measure includes a recommendation for a minimum and target standard for endoscopy services to achieve. We recommend that all stakeholders in endoscopy take note of these ESGE endoscopy services performance measures to accelerate their adoption and implementation. Stakeholders include patients and their advocacy groups; service leaders; staff, including endoscopists; professional societies; payers; and regulators.

The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) and United European Gastroenterology present a short list of key performance measures for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). We recommend that endoscopy services across Europe adopt the following seven key and one minor performance measures for EUS and ERCP, for measurement and evaluation in daily practice at centre and endoscopist level: 1 Adequate antibiotic prophylaxis before ERCP (key performance measure, at least 90%); 2 antibiotic prophylaxis before EUS-guided puncture of cystic lesions (key performance measure, at least 95%); 3 bile duct cannulation rate (key performance measure, at least 90%); 4 tissue sampling during EUS (key performance measure, at least 85%); 5 appropriate stent placement in patients with biliary obstruction below the hilum (key performance measure, at least 95%); 6 bile duct stone extraction (key performance measure, at least 90%); 7 post-ERCP pancreatitis (key performance measure, less than 10%); and 8 adequate documentation of EUS landmarks (minor performance measure, at least 90%). This present list of quality performance measures for ERCP and EUS recommended by the ESGE should not be considered to be exhaustive; it might be extended in future to address further clinical and scientific issues.

Background: Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010., Objectives: To assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves., Search Methods: We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings., Selection Criteria: We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions., Data Collection and Analysis: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects., Main Results: We included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.The eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.Meta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.None of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: Moisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.