Key data on diagnostic imaging workflows for gastroenterology and hepatology teams

About this Infographic

Recent studies suggest that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. Across multiple cohorts, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, pending validation in prospective studies. Across multiple cohorts, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, particularly in resource-constrained settings. Longitudinal data show that real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, pending validation in prospective studies.

According to consensus recommendations, training and accreditation are decisive for reproducibility, pending validation in prospective studies. Contrary to earlier assumptions, pre-analytical factors account for a large share of observed variance, pending validation in prospective studies. In routine practice, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, which has direct implications for daily practice. From a workflow perspective, threshold harmonization is still an open question, with meaningful differences between subgroups. According to consensus recommendations, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, a finding echoed by several independent groups.

From a workflow perspective, standardized reporting improves comparability between centers, although confirmatory data are still limited. Contrary to earlier assumptions, early intervention correlates with better long-term outcomes, as discussed in the accompanying commentary. When protocols are compared, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, a finding echoed by several independent groups. Across multiple cohorts, real-world registries complement randomized trial evidence, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

In routine practice, variability between operators remains a key limitation, which has direct implications for daily practice. In multidisciplinary settings, cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, although confirmatory data are still limited. Contrary to earlier assumptions, cost considerations continue to shape adoption in smaller units, pending validation in prospective studies.

In routine practice, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, pending validation in prospective studies. Longitudinal data show that cross-disciplinary review changes the initial assessment in a sizeable minority of cases, which has direct implications for daily practice. From a workflow perspective, variability between operators remains a key limitation, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Contrary to earlier assumptions, threshold harmonization is still an open question, as discussed in the accompanying commentary.

From a workflow perspective, digital tooling shortens time-to-decision considerably, with meaningful differences between subgroups. Across multiple cohorts, patient selection criteria deserve closer scrutiny, with meaningful differences between subgroups.