SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A sample of 1462 school-children aged between 9 and 15 years were randomly selected from all schools in Kuala Langat, a rural district in Malaysia. Those with recurrent abdominal pain, defined according to Apley's criteria, were recruited and divided into consulters and non-consulters. A consulter was defined as a child who had sought the help of a medical practitioner at least once in the past year for recurrent abdominal pain. A detailed clinical, social and family history was obtained in all recruited children.
RESULTS: A total of 161 children were recruited: 78 (48.4%) consulters, 83 (51.6%) non-consulters. Of the consulters, 40 were boys, 38 were girls (male:female ratio = 1.1:1). The two sexes did not show a significant difference in prevalence of consulters [p=0.189). Of the ethnic groups, only Indians had a significantly higher likelihood to consult a doctor (Indians, p=0.006; Malays, p=0.742; Chinese, p=0.050]. Younger children (under 12 years) had a significantly higher chance of having been brought to see a medical practitioner (p=0.014). Children in whom age of onset of abdominal pain was below ten years were also more likely to have been seen by a doctor (p=0.012). Children who had consulted a doctor were more likely to be missing school because of abdominal pain (p<0.001). Pain severity was not a significant factor (p=0.429). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that the only variable that remained significantly associated with health-care consultation was school absence (p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Children who saw their doctors for recurrent abdominal pain were also more likely to be those who missed school on account of abdominal pain. Following multiple regression analysis, other factors were no longer significant.
METHODS: In total, 1,764 patients (1,130 with ulcerative colitis [UC] and 634 with Crohn's disease [CD]) were recruited from 10 tertiary centers in Asia. The medical records of IBD patients were retrospectively reviewed for the presence, clinical characteristics, chronological order, and therapeutic management of EIMs.
RESULTS: EIMs were reported in 199 (11.3%) patients, of which 17 (1.0%) patients had multiple EIMs. EIMs were more prevalent in CD patients (P = 0.02). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that female sex (odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15-3.55), stricture (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.41-4.39) and female sex (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.52-4.34), extensive colitis (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.57-4.41) were associated with EIMs in CD and UC patients respectively. EIMs appeared in 8% of patients before IBD diagnosis; 95% of cases with EIM could be managed via first-line therapy.
CONCLUSION: EIM prevalence is lower among Asian IBD patients than among patients from Western countries; however, the risk factors for EIM were similar between both populations.
METHODS/DESIGN: Consensus statements for the use of single use endoscopy and accessories were developed using a modified Delphi process, utilizing an international endoscopist expert panel of 62 experts from 33 nations. The main steps in the process were selecting the consensus group, conducting systematic literature reviews, developing statements, and anonymous voting on the statements until consensus was reached. High-risk patients were defined as those with multi-drug-resistant infections, immunosuppressive medication or chemotherapy, post-transplantation, or with severe neutropenia.
RESULTS: Of the 26 statements that were voted upon through two rounds, 17 statements reached consensus. Category 1: single use accessories (8 statements), related to defining recommendations for the use of single use accessories in all patient populations or high-risk patients. Category 2: clinical indication for single use endoscopes (9 statements), including indications to high-risk patients, protecting the endoscope apparatus and contamination measures in endoscopy units. Category 3: technical factors (4 statements), related to superior performance and technical specifications with the new innovation. Category 4: environmental issues (2 statements), concerning mechanisms that reduce the detrimental burden to the environment. Category 5: financial implications (3 statements), related to healthcare policies, cost neutrality and other financial associations of single use endoscopy.
CONCLUSIONS: This is the first international initiative in determining clinical indications for single use endoscopy and accessories. The study's findings should serve as a framework for future physicians to guide future research and aid the proper evidence-based indications for the implementation of single use endoscopes in clinical practice.