SAGES guidelines for the surgical treatment of gastroesophageal reflux (GERD)

To develop and validate a comprehensive complication index (CCI) that integrates all events with their respective severity. Reporting of surgical complications is inconsistent and often incomplete. Most studies fail to provide information about the severity of complications, or inform only on the most severe event, ignoring events of lesser severity. We used an established classification of complications, adopting methods from operation risk index analysis in marketing research to develop a formula that considers all complications that may occur in a patient. The weights of each grade of complication, defined as median reference values, were obtained from 472 participants, who rated 30 different complications. Validation to assess sensitivity to treatment effects and validity of the CCI was performed by 4 different approaches, based on 1299 patients. The CCI is calculated as the sum of all complications that are weighted for their severity (multiplication of the median reference values from patients and physicians). The final formula yields a continuous scale to rank the severity of any combination of complications from 0 to 100 in a single patient. The CCI was highly sensitive in detecting treatment effect differences in the context of a randomized trial (effect size detected by CCI vs conventional standardized morbidity outcomes). It also showed a negative correlation with postoperative health status (r = -0.24, P = 0.002), and high correlation with the results of patient-rated single and multiple complications on conjoint analysis (r = 0.94, P < 0.001). The CCI summarizes all postoperative complications and is more sensitive than existing morbidity endpoints. It may serve as a standardized and widely applicable primary endpoint in surgical trials and other interventional fields of medicine. The CCI can be readily computed on the basis of tabulated complications according to the Clavien-Dindo classification (available at www.assessurgery.com).

To update the findings of the 2005 systematic review of population-based studies assessing the epidemiology of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD). PubMed and Embase were screened for new references using the original search strings. Studies were required to be population-based, to include ≥ 200 individuals, to have response rates ≥ 50% and recall periods <12 months. GERD was defined as heartburn and/or regurgitation on at least 1 day a week, or according to the Montreal definition, or diagnosed by a clinician. Temporal and geographic trends in disease prevalence were examined using a Poisson regression model. 16 studies of GERD epidemiology published since the original review were found to be suitable for inclusion (15 reporting prevalence and one reporting incidence), and were added to the 13 prevalence and two incidence studies found previously. The range of GERD prevalence estimates was 18.1%-27.8% in North America, 8.8%-25.9% in Europe, 2.5%-7.8% in East Asia, 8.7%-33.1% in the Middle East, 11.6% in Australia and 23.0% in South America. Incidence per 1000 person-years was approximately 5 in the overall UK and US populations, and 0.84 in paediatric patients aged 1-17 years in the UK. Evidence suggests an increase in GERD prevalence since 1995 (p<0.0001), particularly in North America and East Asia. GERD is prevalent worldwide, and disease burden may be increasing. Prevalence estimates show considerable geographic variation, but only East Asia shows estimates consistently lower than 10%.

This article describes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to classifying the direction and strength of recommendations. The strength of a recommendation, separated into strong and weak, is defined as the extent to which one can be confident that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects. Alternative terms for a weak recommendation include conditional, discretionary, or qualified. The strength of a recommendation has specific implications for patients, the public, clinicians, and policy makers. Occasionally, guideline developers may choose to make "only-in-research" recommendations. Although panels may choose not to make recommendations, this choice leaves those looking for answers from guidelines without the guidance they are seeking. GRADE therefore encourages panels to, wherever possible, offer recommendations. Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.