Optimized sedation improves colonoscopy quality long-term. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2015;2015:195093. [PMID: 25648556 PMCID: PMC4306400 DOI: 10.1155/2015/195093]

Safe outpatient discharge after gastrointestinal endoscopy with sedation and analgesia: a systematic literature review

Sedation and analgesia during gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy increase procedural quality, contributing at the same time to greater patient satisfaction and willingness to undergo the procedure. Although sedation use has been optimized by the advent of efficacious and safe medications, data regarding the minimal criteria for discharge after outpatient endoscopy remain scant. Moreover, the time of discharge after endoscopy can be highly variable, depending not only on the type of procedure and anesthesia administered, but also on postprocedural complications and the patient's comorbidities. To make things even more conflicting, there is neither consensus among various endoscopic societies, concerning the most appropriate discharge strategy, nor a universally established tool that could be incorporated into everyday clinical practice, allowing patients' safe discharge as well as ability to drive. In this context, we conducted a systematic review, aiming to summarize the evidence regarding the available discharge scoring systems after outpatient GI endoscopy with sedation and analgesia administration.

Nasal continuous positive pressure versus simple face mask oxygenation for adult obese and obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing colonoscopy under propofol-based general anesthesia without tracheal intubation: A randomized controlled trial

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if a nasal positive airway pressure (nasal CPAP) mask would decrease the number of hypoxemic events in obese and obstructive sleep apnea patients undergoing colonoscopy.

DESIGN

Single-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Tertiary academic center.

PATIENTS

We enrolled 109 patients with diagnosis of obesity and/or obstructive sleep apnea scheduled to undergo colonoscopy under propofol general anesthesia without planned tracheal intubation.

INTERVENTION

Patients were randomly allocated (1:1 ratio) to receive supplementary oxygen at a flow of 10 L/min, either through a nasal CPAP or a simple facemask.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary endpoint was the difference in the mean percentage of time spent with oxygen saturation below 90% between the two groups. Secondary outcomes included the need for airway maneuvers/interventions, average SpO2 during the case, duration and severity of oxygen desaturation, incidence and duration of procedural interruptions, and satisfaction and tolerance scores.

MAIN RESULTS

54 were allocated to the simple face mask and 55 to the nasal CPAP mask arms, respectively. A total of 6 patients experienced a hypoxemic event. Among these patients, the difference in the percentage of time spent with oxygen saturation below 90% was not clinically relevant (p = 1.0). However, patients in the nasal CPAP group required less chin lift (20% vs. 42.6%; p = 0.01) and oral cannula insertion (12.7% vs.29.6%; p = 0.03). The percentage of patients with at least one airway maneuver was higher in the simple face mask arm (68.5% vs. 41.8%; p = 0.005). Patient tolerance to device score was lower in the nasal CPAP group (8.85 vs. 9.56; p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

A nasal CPAP did not prevent hypoxemia and should not be used routinely for colonoscopy in obese or OSA patients if a simple face mask is an alternative therapy. However, potential advantages of its use include fewer airway maneuvers or interventions, which may be desirable in certain clinical settings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT05175573.

Comparison of missed adenomas in deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy: A multicenter retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Deep-sedated colonoscopy with propofol is widely used in China. However, its impact on quality metrics remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the effects of deep-sedated colonoscopy on missed adenomas, specifically in each colorectal segment.

METHODS

Data of 3710 individuals from seven hospitals in China who underwent an initial colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation and a second colonoscopy without sedation within six months for surveillance or polypectomy by endoscopist of the same level between October 2020 and September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 1113 missed adenomas in 3710 patients were evaluated. The adenoma miss rate (AMR) was significantly higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscop [19.14% (578/3020) vs. 16.15% (535/3313), P < 0.05]. The risk of missing adenomas in deep-sedated colonoscopy was 1.229 times higher than in unsedated colonoscopy (OR, 1.229; 95% CI: 1.080-1.399). AMRs of the splenic flexure (26.02% [96/369] vs. 16.04% [47/293], P < 0.05) and descending colon (20.86% [102/489] vs. 13.37% [54/404], P < 0.05) were significantly higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy when performed by middle-level endoscopists rather than high-level endoscopists (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

AMR was higher in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy. Furthermore, adenomas in the splenic flexure and descending colon were more frequently missed in deep-sedated colonoscopy than in unsedated colonoscopy, particularly when performed by less experienced endoscopists.

Sedation Is Associated with Higher Polyp and Adenoma Detection Rates during Colonoscopy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background and Aims

Currently sedation is a common practice in colonoscopy to reduce pain of patients and improve the operator satisfaction, whereas its impact on examination quality, especially adenoma detection rate (ADR) is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to investigate the association of sedation with ADR.

Methods

Consecutive patients receiving colonoscopy between January 2017 and January 2020 at the Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China, were collected. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were performed to investigate the association between sedation and ADR. Subgroup analysis and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis, as sensitivity analysis, were performed to validate the independent effect.

Results

The ADR was significantly higher in cases with sedation (ADR: 36.9% vs. 29.1%, odds ratio [OR]: 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.55, P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that the sedation was an independent factor associated with ADR (OR: 1.49, 95% CI: 1.35-1.65, P < 0.001). The effect was consistent in subgroup analyses (P > 0.05) and PSM analysis (ADR: 37.6% vs. 29.1%, OR: 1.47, 95% CI: 1.33-1.63, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Sedation was associated with a higher polyp and ADR s during colonoscopy, which can promote the quality of colonoscopy.

Comparison of adenoma detection in different colorectal segments between deep-sedated and unsedated colonoscopy

To investigate if deep-sedated colonoscopy affects adenoma detection in certain colorectal segment. Review of colonoscopy reports, electronic images and medical records of individuals underwent screening colonoscopy with or without propofol sedation between October 2020 and March 2021 from seven hospitals in China. A total of 4500 individuals were analyzed. There was no significant difference in ADR between deep-sedated colonoscopy and unsedated colonoscopy [45.4% vs. 46.3%, P > 0.05]. The APP of deep-sedated colonoscopy was lower than unsedated colonoscopy (1.76 ± 0.81 vs. 2.00 ± 1.30, P < 0.05). Both average number of adenomas and luminal distention score of splenic flexure and descending colon were lower in deep-sedated colonoscopy (P < 0.05), and average number of adenomas was positively correlated with an improved distension score in splenic flexure and descending colon (splenic flexure r = 0.031, P < 0.05; descending colon r = 0.312, P < 0.05). Linear regression model showed deep-sedated colonoscopy significantly affected luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon as well as average number of adenomas detected in splenic flexure (P < 0.05). Deep-sedated colonoscopy decreased adenoma detection in splenic flexure and the luminal distention of splenic flexure and descending colon compared with unsedated colonoscopy.

Comparison of three sedation models for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy: A multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND AIM

We investigated the most beneficial propofol sedation model for same-day painless bidirectional endoscopy (BDE).

METHODS

Asymptomatic participants scheduled for same-day painless BDE examination from October 2020 to September 2021 were randomized to three groups: sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy (Group A); sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated colonoscopy (Group B); and sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by sedated insertion colonoscopy (Group C). Patient discomfort, colonoscopy performance, doses of propofol, cardiovascular stress, anesthesia resuscitation, and sedation-related adverse events were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 3200 participants were analyzed. Baseline demographics, patient discomfort, cecal intubation rate, adenoma detection rate and sedation-related adverse events were similar in the three groups. Propofol dose was the lowest in Group A (137.65 ± 36.865 mg) compared with Group B (177.71 ± 40.112 mg, P < 0.05) and Group C (161.63 ± 31.789 mg, P < 0.05). Decline in vital signs was most obvious in Group B during the procedure (P < 0.05). Recovery time was the shortest in Group A (5.01 ± 1.404 min) compared with Group B (9.51 ± 2.870 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (5.83 ± 2.594 min, P < 0.05); discharge time was the shortest in Group A (3.53 ± 1.685 min) compared with Group B (11.29 ± 5.172 min, P < 0.05) and Group C (6.47 ± 2.338 min, P < 0.05). Adenomas per positive patient of Group A (2.29 ± 1.055) and Group C (2.28 ± 0.931) were more than that in Group B (2.11 ± 0.946, P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy followed by unsedated colonoscopy is the superior model for same-day painless BDE with the benefits of satisfactory patient comfort, reduced sedation dose, less cardiovascular stress, faster recovery, shorter discharge time and high colonoscopy quality.

Sedation/Analgesia Administration Practice Varies according to Endoscopy Facility (Hospital- or Office-Based) Setting: Results from a Nationwide Survey in Greece

Objectives

To examine the impact of endoscopy setting (hospital-based vs. office-based) on sedation/analgesia administration and to provide nationwide data on monitoring practices among Greek gastroenterologists in real-world settings. Material and Methods. A web-based survey regarding sedation/analgesia rates and monitoring practices during endoscopy either in a hospital-based or in an office-based setting was disseminated to the members of the Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology and Professional Association of Gastroenterologists. Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire, which consisted of 35 items, stratified into 4 sections: demographics, preprocedure (informed consent, initial patient evaluation), intraprocedure (monitoring practices, sedative agents' administration rate), and postprocedure practices (recovery).

Results

211 individuals responded (response rate: 40.3%). Propofol use was significantly higher in the private hospital compared to the public hospital and the office-based setting for esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) (85.8% vs. 19.5% vs. 10.5%, p < 0.0001) and colonoscopy (88.2% vs. 20.1% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.0001). This effect was not detected for midazolam, pethidine, and fentanyl use. Endoscopists themselves administered the medications in most cases. However, a significant contribution of anesthesiology sedation/analgesia provision was detected in private hospitals (14.7% vs. 2.8% vs. 2.4%, p < 0.001) compared to the other settings. Only 35.2% of the private offices have a separate recovery room, compared to 80.4% and 58.7% of the private hospital- and public hospital-based facilities, respectively, while the nursing personnel monitored patients' recovery in most of the cases. Participants were familiar with airway management techniques (83.9% with bag valve mask and 23.2% with endotracheal intubation), while 49.7% and 21.8% had received Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) training, respectively.

Conclusion

The private hospital-based setting is associated with higher propofol sedation administration both for EGD and for colonoscopy. Greek endoscopists are adequately trained in airway management techniques.

Predictors of Failed Conscious Sedation in Patients Undergoing an Outpatient Colonoscopy and Implications for the Adenoma Detection Rate

Guidelines to triage patients to conscious sedation (CS) or monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for colonoscopy do not exist. We aimed to identify the CS failure rate, predictors of failure, and its impact on the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Strict (based on patient experience) and expanded (based on doses of sedative medications) definitions of CS failure were used. Patient and procedure-related variables were extracted. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors for CS failure and the ADR. Among 766 patients, 29 (3.8%) and 175 (22.8%) patients failed CS by strict and expanded definitions, respectively. Female gender (OR 3.50; 95% CI: 1.37–8.94) and fellow involvement (OR 4.15; 95% CI: 1.79–9.58) were associated with failed CS by the strict definition. Younger age (OR 1.27, 95% CI: 1.07–1.49), outpatient opiate use (OR 1.71; 95% CI 1.03–2.84), use of an adjunct medication (OR 3.34; 95% CI: 1.94–5.73), and fellow involvement (OR 2.20; 95% CI: 1.31–3.71) were associated with failed CS by the expanded definition. Patients meeting strict failure criteria had a lower ADR (OR 0.30; 95% CI: 0.12–0.77). Several clinical factors may be useful for triaging to MAC. The ADR is lower in patients meeting strict criteria for failed CS.

Moderate versus deep sedation in adults undergoing colonoscopy: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing effectiveness and safety of moderate and deep sedation during colonoscopy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, Central and Google scholar in May 2017 and updated in March 2018 to identify all randomized controlled trials that compared the effectiveness and safety of moderate and deep sedation during colonoscopy. The quality of studies was assessed using the "Risk of bias" tool. The primary endpoints were defined as patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, incidence of recall and incidence of desaturation. Recovery time was also evaluated. Review Manager and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 919 patients from three studies were included in the final analysis. The combined analysis did not reveal any differences in patient satisfaction between moderate and deep sedation (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.04; P_chi² = 0.06; I² = 65%; number needed to treat to harm [NNTH] = 15.6; 95% CI: NNTH 7.8 to ∞ to number needed to treat to benefit [NNTB] = 3078.0), physician satisfaction (RR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.02 to 6.95; P_chi² < 0.001; I² = 100%; NNTB = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.5 to 1.8), incidence of recall (RR = 5.82; 95% CI: 0.51 to 66.48; P_chi² = 0.11; I² = 60%; NNTH = 11.0; 95% CI: 7.5 to 20.5) or recovery time (mean difference = -6.77; 95% CI: -16.21 to 2.67; P_chi² < 0.001; I² = 99%). However, incidence of desaturation was higher in the deep group than in the moderate group (RR = 0.18; 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.99; P_chi² = 0.48; I² = 0%; NNTB = 56.7; 95% CI: 31.6 to 273.1).

CONCLUSIONS

Moderate sedation showed comparable safety and effectiveness to deep sedation with respect to patient satisfaction, physician satisfaction, incidence of recall and recovery time.

Monitoring of colonoscopy quality indicators in an academic endoscopy facility reveals adherence to international recommendations

Background

We monitor colonoscopy service quality biannually, by measuring sedation administration, colonoscopy completion, adenoma detection and early complications rates (CR). We herein present our audit results for the years 2013 and 2015.

Methods

In our endoscopy facility, five rotating senior gastroenterologists perform colonoscopies, on a daily basis. We measured the quality indicators in three cohorts: A, intention for total colonoscopy cases; B, cohort A excluding bowel obstruction cases; C, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening cases.

Results

In 2015, overall sedation administration rate (SAR) was 93.0% (91.6-94.4%), achieving our target to give conscious sedation to >90% of patients undergoing colonoscopy in all three cohorts. Colonoscopy completion rate (CCR) increased significantly (P<0.0001) from 94.8% (93.4-96.2%) to 98.1% (97.3-98.9%) in cohort B and numerically from 96.6% (94.4-98.8%) to 98.6% (97.4-99.7%) in cohort C, at the same periods. In cohort C, adenoma detection rates (ADR) were similar-27.1% (21.7-32.5%) and 27% (22.7-31.3%)-in the two periods. There were only two serious early complications: one cardiorespiratory event and one perforation in 2013 and 2015, respectively. While significant variability regarding SAR (ranging from 80% to 100%) was detected among the participating endoscopists, all but one of them constantly achieved [judged by the lower confidence interval (CI) of the quality indicator] CCRs higher than the recommended by international guidelines. On the contrary ADR was variable among endoscopists during the studied periods.

Conclusions

Although there is certain variability in endoscopists' performance, the overall colonoscopy quality indicators meet or exceed the internationally recommended standards, in our endoscopy facility.

Is Unsedated Colonoscopy Gaining Ground Over Sedated Colonoscopy?

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a prevalent cancer with high global incidence and a leading cause of cancer death worldwide. CRC screening is important for early cancer detection and prevention. Most premalignant adenomas can be identified and removed before they become malignant. Colonoscopy plays a vital role in reducing the risk for developing CRC. Although screening programs with colonoscopy have been implemented in many countries and considered beneficial for a number of people, this technique is generally associated with anxiety, embarrassment, pain, and discomfort, resulting in lack of adherence to the recommended screening guidelines. In the US, colonoscopy is mostly performed under sedation, thereby causing amnesia and analgesia. In contrast to sedated colonoscopy, which has been associated with some disadvantages, unsedated colonoscopy exhibits advantages and has been preferred over sedated colonoscopy in numerous cancer centers worldwide. This review enumerates the features of sedated and unsedated colonoscopy with the use of the current relevant evidence-based literature. Unsedated colonoscopy can be a reasonable option for routine and unscheduled CRC screening.

Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators

Colonoscopy is a widely performed procedure with procedural volumes increasing annually throughout the world. Many procedures are now performed as part of colorectal cancer screening programmes. Colonoscopy should be of high quality and measures of this quality should be evidence based. New UK key performance indicators and quality assurance standards have been developed by a working group with consensus agreement on each standard reached. This paper reviews the scientific basis for each of the quality measures published in the UK standards.

New-Generation High-Definition Colonoscopes Increase Adenoma Detection when Screening a Moderate-Risk Population for Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is the most important quality indicator for screening colonoscopy, due to its association with colorectal cancer outcomes. As a result, a number of techniques and technologies have been proposed that have the potential to improve ADR. The aim of this study was to assess the potential impact of new-generation high-definition (HD) colonoscopy on ADR within the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP).

METHOD

This was a retrospective single-center observational study in patients undergoing an index screening colonoscopy. The examination was performed with either standard-definition colonoscopes (Olympus Q240/Q260 series) or HD colonoscopes (Olympus HQ290 EVIS LUCERA ELITE system) with the primary outcome measures of ADR and mean adenoma per procedure (MAP) between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

A total of 395 patients (60.5% male, mean age 66.8 years) underwent screening colonoscopy with 45% performed with HD colonoscopes. The cecal intubation rate was 97.5% on an intention-to-treat basis and ADR was 68.6%. ADR with standard-definition was 63.13%, compared with 75.71% with HD (P = .007). The MAP in the HD group was 2.1 (± 2.0), whereas in the standard-definition group it was 1.6 (± 1.8) (P = .01). There was no significant difference in withdrawal time between the 2 groups. In the multivariate regression model, only HD scopes (P = .03) and male sex (P = .04) independently influenced ADR.

CONCLUSION

Olympus H290 LUCERA ELITE HD colonoscopes improved adenoma detection within the moderate-risk population. A 12% improvement in ADR might be expected to increase significantly the protection afforded by colonoscopy against subsequent colorectal cancer mortality.

Long-term patient satisfaction of gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures

Background

We prospectively assessed patient satisfaction in a Greek Academic endoscopy facility.

Methods

Consecutive outpatients filled a satisfaction questionnaire right after their endoscopy (D1), 3 days (D3) and 3 months (M3) later. Overall patient satisfaction was measured by their willingness to repeat endoscopy in our facility and to further recommend it. Participant satisfaction regarding pre-procedural, procedural and post-procedural issues was measured using a five-step Likert scale in 19 items with 4 and 5 scores indicating favorable responses. Pareto analysis was used to determine service issues requiring improvement. Late adverse events were recorded at D3 and M3 assessments.

Results

Over six months, 501 patients participated (89.4% and 87.8% response rate at D3 and M3 assessments, respectively). More than 97% of the participants would repeat the procedure in our facility and would recommend our endoscopy service, at all three assessments. Pareto analysis identified waiting time until the appointment and on the day of the examination, discomfort during and after the endoscopy, time to obtain the pathology report and overall management of the patient problems as the issues requiring improvement. No predictor of high satisfaction score has been identified. No serious late adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

Despite the overall high levels of patient satisfaction, management of patient discomfort and organizational issues need improvement.

Diagnostic yield of scope retroflexion in the right colon: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Techniques have been implemented to improve colonoscopy adenoma detection rate (ADR) in the right colon.

AIMS & METHODS

We prospectively examined the additional diagnostic yield of right colon examination with colonoscope retroflexion in consecutive, symptomatic and screening-surveillance patients. Right colon was examined in forward-view first and thereafter, retroflexion was performed to re-inspect it.

RESULTS

Right colon examination in retroflexion was achieved in 620 (92%) patients. Increased inserted scope length to the cecum (OR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.27-0.84]) and elderly status (OR: 0.53 [95% CI: 0.430-0.94]) predicted retrofexion failure. Forward-view colonoscopy detected 134 polyps and 112 adenomas in 105 and 85 patients, respectively. Scope retroflexion revealed 7 missed (6 adenomas--2 advanced) polyps in 7 patients; indicating 4.96 (95% CI: 1.37-8.55) % and 5.1 (95% CI: 1.12-9.05) % per-polyp and per-adenoma miss rates, respectively. In ITT analysis, per-patient polyp and adenoma miss rates were 1.041% and 0.89%, respectively. Among screening-surveillance patients, retroflexion detected 3 missed adenomas (2 advanced) in 3 patients, resulting in changed surveillance schedule in 2 of them (5.12 per 1000 screening-surveillance patients). Early study termination was favored by low right colon ADR improvement and lacking substantial surveillance interval change.

CONCLUSION

The additional diagnostic yield of scope retroflexion in the right colon is questionable.

Target-Controlled Infusion of Propofol in Training Anesthesiology Residents in Colonoscopy Sedation: A Prospective Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND

Propofol is widely used in sedation for colonoscopy, but its adverse effects on cardiovascular and respiratory systems are still concerning. The present study investigated whether target controlled infusion (TCI) of propofol could provide a better sedation quality than manually controlled infusion (MCI) in training inexperienced anesthesiology residents.

MATERIAL/METHODS

Eighteen training residents were allocated into 2 groups receiving TCI and MCI training in their first month in the endoscopy center, while receiving MCI and TCI training instead in their second month. The last 2 patients at the end of each month were included to analyze the sedation quality of TCI and MCI techniques by comparing satisfaction of endoscopist and patients based on the visual analogue scale (VAS). Heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MAP), SpO2, and recovery time were also compared as the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The demographic data were similarly distributed among the TCI and MCI patients. Endoscopist's satisfaction score in the TCI group was significantly higher than in the MCI group, 81.3±7.2 versus 74.2±9.5 (P=0.003), but the patients' satisfaction score was similar between the 2 groups. More stable hemodynamic status was obtained in the TCI group, manifested as higher lowest MAP and lower highest MAP than in the MCI group. Lowest SpO2 in the TCI group was significantly higher than in the MCI group. Patients in the TCI group recovered earlier than in the MCI group.

CONCLUSIONS

TCI is a more effective and safer technique for anesthesiology residents in sedation for colonoscopy.

New technologies and techniques to improve adenoma detection in colonoscopy

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a key component of colonoscopy quality assessment, with a direct link between itself and future mortality from colorectal cancer. There are a number of potential factors, both modifiable and non-modifiable that can impact upon ADR. As methods, understanding and technologies advance, so should our ability to improve ADRs, and thus, reduce colorectal cancer mortality. This article will review new technologies and techniques that improve ADR, both in terms of the endoscopes themselves and adjuncts to current systems. In particular it focuses on effective techniques and behaviours, developments in image enhancement, advancement in endoscope design and developments in accessories that may improve ADR. It also highlights the key role that continued medical education plays in improving the quality of colonoscopy and thus ADR. The review aims to present a balanced summary of the evidence currently available and does not propose to serve as a guideline.