Article Text

Download PDFPDF
New 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology colitis surveillance guidelines: costs and surveillance intervals
  1. Nadia N Elsadani1,
  2. James E East1,2,
  3. Julian R F Walters1
  1. 1Department of Gastroenterology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
  2. 2Translational Gastroenterology Unit, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr James E East, Translational Gastroenterology Unit, Experimental Medicine Division, Nuffield Dept of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK; jameseast6{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

The new 2010 British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) recommendations for colitis surveillance reported in Gut represent a paradigm shift in attempts to detect dysplasia in colitis compared with the 2002 guidelines.1 2 Specifically, the strong recommendation for chromoendoscopy ‘dye spray’ to improve detection rather than large numbers of random biopsies is a major shift in colonoscopic practice, backed by increasingly compelling clinical trial evidence.3 4 Surveillance intervals are also newly defined by risk rather than disease duration. In the current economic environment, new techniques and strategies need to show that they are cost-effective for widespread implementation to occur. The authors provide a basic cost–benefit analysis based on the numbers of colonoscopies performed under old and new guidelines but do not consider other costs—specifically, histology and endoscopic equipment costs. Also, it is not clear how they arrived at the numbers in each risk group.

We recently performed an audit of all patients undergoing …

View Full Text


  • These data, based on a draft version of the guidelines, were presented as a poster presentation at GASTRO 2009 UEGW/WCOG, 21–25 November 2009, London. Gut 2009;58(Suppl II):A319.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles