HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hudson, B Articles by Green, J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Hudson, B Articles by Green, J

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines for ulcerative colitis surveillance: creating consensus or confusion?

Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
MrB Hudson
Department of Gastroenterology, Llandough Hospital, Penlan Rd, Cardiff CF64 2XX, UK; hudsonbe@hotmail.com

Keywords: ulcerative colitis; cancer surveillance; questionnaires; guidelines

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Absence of grade A evidence combined with discrepancies between retrospective studies in reported survival benefit has led to controversy surrounding the colonoscopic surveillance of ulcerative colitis (UC) patients. Such controversy was demonstrated in 2000 by an audit which revealed widespread variations in surveillance practice.¹ Following the introduction of British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) guidelines in 2002,² concern was expressed regarding the medicolegal implications posed by national recommendations based on inconclusive evidence and lacking multicentre consensus.³ Three years after the publication of the guidelines, a questionnaire survey has indicated that widespread disparities in opinion and practice still exist.

Questionnaires were distributed to all consultants and specialist registrars in gastroenterology within the Wales deanery. A 45.1% (23/51) response rate was achieved. Although a significant majority (73.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56.0–91.8%)) agreed that colonoscopic surveillance of UC patients was a worthwhile exercise, opinions of what constituted "best practice" varied considerably. Only a . . . [Full text of this article]