The CCv4.0 Working Group is comprised of 52 members selected by six international motility societies, representative of 20 countries. Characteristics of the working group are detailed in Supplemental Table 1 . The CCv4.0 initiative was a two-year process (November 2018 to October 2020) which included three international meetings (May 2019, San Diego, CA; October 2019, Barcelona, Spain; August 2020, web-conference), multiple sub-group meetings, and seven surveys.
An initial survey conducted in January 2019 identified priority areas for update and modification from the previous 3.0 version (Supplemental Table 1 ). Accordingly, members were assigned to seven sub-groups: Standard HRM protocol, Achalasia, Esophagogastric junction (EGJ) outflow obstruction (EGJOO), Distal esophageal spasm (DES), Hypercontractile esophagus, Ineffective esophageal motility (IEM), and EGJ metrics. Each sub-group was led by two co-chairs and included a non-voting member who independently reviewed supportive literature and assessed level of evidence. Co-chairs and sub-group members were tasked with developing statements to define a conclusive diagnosis of the motility disorder assigned to their sub-group, as well as to describe inconclusive scenarios for motility disorders and the value of supportive testing. These statements were based on literature review and expert consensus.
In addition to expert consensus, a priority for CCv4.0 was to utilize formally validated methodologies to determine both appropriateness of statements, and level of supportive evidence for each statement. The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilized, with two rounds of independent electronic voting to determine appropriateness of each statement per RAM using University of California San Diego Research Electronic Database Capture (REDCap). Statements were considered appropriate when meeting ≥80% agreement, and are included in the final CCv4.0.4 (link), 5 (link) Statements with ≥85% agreement were considered strong recommendations, while those with 80 to 85% agreement were considered conditional recommendations. Statements nearly meeting criteria and/or those generating controversy were discussed at working group meetings. Additionally, statements that met criteria for inclusion in the final CCv4.0 underwent further independent evaluation to assess the level of supportive evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process, when possible.6 (link) Two experts external to the working sub-groups, one a formally trained GRADE methodologist, independently evaluated the supportive literature provided by the sub-groups. Some statements were not amenable to the GRADE process, either because of the structure of the statement or lack of available evidence.
This document summarizes the final recommendations of the CCv4.0 working group. Separate technical reviews specific to each working group will summarize the statement development process, survey results, and supporting literature. These will be published separately in future issues of Neurogastroenterology and Motility over the coming months.
An initial survey conducted in January 2019 identified priority areas for update and modification from the previous 3.0 version (
In addition to expert consensus, a priority for CCv4.0 was to utilize formally validated methodologies to determine both appropriateness of statements, and level of supportive evidence for each statement. The RAND Appropriateness Method (RAM) was utilized, with two rounds of independent electronic voting to determine appropriateness of each statement per RAM using University of California San Diego Research Electronic Database Capture (REDCap). Statements were considered appropriate when meeting ≥80% agreement, and are included in the final CCv4.0.4 (link), 5 (link) Statements with ≥85% agreement were considered strong recommendations, while those with 80 to 85% agreement were considered conditional recommendations. Statements nearly meeting criteria and/or those generating controversy were discussed at working group meetings. Additionally, statements that met criteria for inclusion in the final CCv4.0 underwent further independent evaluation to assess the level of supportive evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process, when possible.6 (link) Two experts external to the working sub-groups, one a formally trained GRADE methodologist, independently evaluated the supportive literature provided by the sub-groups. Some statements were not amenable to the GRADE process, either because of the structure of the statement or lack of available evidence.
This document summarizes the final recommendations of the CCv4.0 working group. Separate technical reviews specific to each working group will summarize the statement development process, survey results, and supporting literature. These will be published separately in future issues of Neurogastroenterology and Motility over the coming months.