Colonoscopy appropriateness: Really needed or a waste of time?

Table 3 European panel appropriateness of gastrointestinal endoscopy II studies addressing appropriateness and diagnostic yield

Ref.	Design1 (referrals)	EPAGE II2(% appropriate)	S3 (95%CI)	Sp (95%CI)	PPV (95%CI)4	NPV (95%CI)
Carrión et al[33] (2010)	R 655	82.0	80.3 (74.0-84.3)	16.8 (14.9-18.5)	24.8 (23.1-26.4)	71.3 (63.1-78.6)
Arguello et al[9] (2012)	R 619	82.6	78.3 (73.8-82.4)	34.4 (31.3-37.3)	45.2 (42.6-47.6)	69.6 (63.4-75.4)
Gimeno García et al[10] (2012)	P 968	89.5	93.1 (90.0-96.3)	12.7 (10.0-15.0)	38.8 (36.0-42.0)	75.5 (67.0-84.0)
Eskeland et al[16] (2014)	R 295	91.0	92.6 (84.8-96.6)	22.9 (17.8-29.0)	31.3 (25.3-37.3)	89.1 (80.7-97.5)

¹Study design: R (retrospective); P (prospective); ²Appropriate and uncertain referrals jointly analysed;

³S (sensitivity); Sp (specificity);

⁴PPV (positive predictive value); NPV (negative predictive value).