Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 815

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 271 of the 271 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease

Open access
Annese, Vito, Daperno, Marco, Rutter, Matthew D., Amiot, Aurelien, Bossuyt, Peter, East, James, Ferrante, Marc, Götz, Martin, Katsanos, Konstantinos H., Kießlich, Ralf, Ordás, Ingrid, Repici, Alessandro, Rosa, Bruno, Sebastian, Shaji, Kucharzik, Torsten, Eliakim, Rami·2013·Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
DOI 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Endoscopy plays an essential role in the diagnosis, management, prognosis, and surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), but surprisingly there are few available guidelines.1,2 This prompted the ECCO Guidelines Committee (GuiCom) members to promote a Consensus on the appropriate indication and application of different endoscopic modalities in IBD. Since the development of guidelines is an expensive and time-consuming process, this Consensus may help to avoid duplication of effort in the future. It may also identify issues where the evidence is lacking and controlled studies are awaited. The strategy to reach the Consensus involved five steps: 1. Two members of the GuiCom (VA and RE) identified four main topics: a) Diagnosis and follow-up; b) Score of endoscopic activity; c) Small bowel endoscopy; and d) Surveillance. During 2012 a call for participants to the Guideline was made to ECCO members. In addition, expert endoscopists recognised for their active research in the field were invited. Participants were selected by the Guicom and four working groups were created. Each working group had a chair (VA, MD, MT, and RE), two ECCO members including young members (Y-ECCO) and one experienced endoscopist. For the development of the guideline, relevant questions on separate topics were devised by the chairmen and their working parties. The questions were focused on current practice and areas of controversy. Participants of the Consensus process were asked to answer the questions based on evidence from the literature as well as their experience (Delphi procedure)3; 2. The working parties working in parallel performed a systematic literature search of their topic with the appropriate key words using Medline/Pubmed and the Cochrane database, as well as other relevant sources; 3. Provisional guideline statements on their topic were then written by the chairmen. These were circulated and commented on first by working party members and …

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016

Cites

271 of 271 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 271 references

Cited by

See all 815

Metadata

Authors
Annese, V., Daperno, M., Rutter, M. D., Amiot, A., Bossuyt, P., East, J., Ferrante, M., Götz, M., Katsanos, K. H., Kießlich, R., Ordás, I., Repici, A., Rosa, B., Sebastian, S., Kucharzik, T., & Eliakim, R.
Venue
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2013-12
Volume
7
Issue
12
Pages
982-1018
ISSN
1873-9946 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016
OpenAlex
W1979184889
Cited by
815
References
271
FWCI
44.51
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016
The paper
Annese, V., Daperno, M., Rutter, M. D., Amiot, A., Bossuyt, P., East, J., Ferrante, M., Götz, M., Katsanos, K. H., Kießlich, R., Ordás, I., Repici, A., Rosa, B., Sebastian, S., Kucharzik, T., & Eliakim, R. (2013). European evidence based consensus for endoscopy in inflammatory bowel disease. Journal of Crohn's and Colitis. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crohns.2013.09.016

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.