METHODS: Members of the Global NASH Council created two surveys about experiences/attitudes toward NAFLD and related diagnostic terms: a 68-item patient and a 41-item provider survey.

RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 1,976 patients with NAFLD across 23 countries (51% Middle East/North Africa [MENA], 19% Europe, 17% USA, 8% Southeast Asia, 5% South Asia) and 825 healthcare providers (67% gastroenterologists/hepatologists) across 25 countries (39% MENA, 28% Southeast Asia, 22% USA, 6% South Asia, 3% Europe). Of all patients, 48% ever disclosed having NAFLD/NASH to family/friends; the most commonly used term was "fatty liver" (88% at least sometimes); "metabolic disease" or "MAFLD" were rarely used (never by >84%). Regarding various perceptions of diagnostic terms by patients, there were no substantial differences between "NAFLD", "fatty liver disease (FLD)", "NASH", or "MAFLD". The most popular response was being neither comfortable nor uncomfortable with either term (56%-71%), with slightly greater discomfort with "FLD" among the US and South Asian patients (47-52% uncomfortable). Although 26% of patients reported stigma related to overweight/obesity, only 8% reported a history of stigmatization or discrimination due to NAFLD. Among providers, 38% believed that the term "fatty" was stigmatizing, while 34% believed that "nonalcoholic" was stigmatizing, more commonly in MENA (43%); 42% providers (gastroenterologists/hepatologists 45% vs. 37% other specialties, p = 0.03) believed that the name change to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (or MASLD) might reduce stigma. Regarding the new nomenclature, the percentage of providers reporting "steatotic liver disease" as stigmatizing was low (14%).

CONCLUSIONS: The perception of NAFLD stigma varies among patients, providers, geographic locations and sub-specialties.

METHODS: The study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. After receiving a pre-test, participants were randomly allocated to either an e-learning or non-e-learning group. Only those in the e-learning group gained access to the e-learning system. Two months after the pre-test, both groups received a post-test. The primary endpoint was the difference between the two groups regarding the rate of improvement of their test results.

FINDINGS: 515 endoscopists from 35 countries were assessed for eligibility, and 332 were enrolled in the study, with 166 allocated to each group. Of these, 151 participants in the e-learning group and 144 in the non-e-learning group were included in the analysis. The mean improvement rate (standard deviation) in the e-learning and non-e-learning groups was 1·24 (0·26) and 1·00 (0·16), respectively (P<0·001).

METHODS: This was a mixed-methods study. Gastroenterologists were surveyed electronically between September 1 and December 7, 2020, via gastroenterology and endoscopy societies of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. The 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used to detect burnout. Quantitative data were non-parametric; non-parametric methods were used for statistical comparisons. Logistic regression was used to determine risk factors for burnout. Content analysis method was used to analyze qualitative data. Ethical approval was obtained.

RESULTS: A total of 73.0% reported that they were still significantly affected by the pandemic. Of these, 40.5% reported increased workload and 59.5% decreased workload. Statistically significant differences in weekly working hours, endoscopy, and inpatient volumes were present. No differences were observed in outpatient volumes, likely because of telemedicine. Burnout was common; however, 50.1% of gastroenterologists were unaware of or did not have access to mental health support. This, as well as depression, being a trainee, and public sector work, increased burnout risk significantly.

METHODS: We used the questionnaire previously established by our team for researchers in European countries. The correlation between the decreased rate of gastrointestinal motility and function tests, and the infection/mortality rates of COVID-19 and stringency of a government's interventions in each country was analysed and protective measures were assessed.

RESULTS: In total, 58 gastroenterologists/motility experts in Asian countries responded to this survey. The infection/mortality rates of COVID-19 and Stringency Index had a significant impact on the testing capacity of oesophageal manometry and catheter-based pH monitoring. In European countries, most facilities used filtering facepiece 2/3 (FFP2/3) masks during oesophageal motility studies. Meanwhile, in Asian countries, most facilities used surgical masks.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed two pictures both with white light (WL) and LCI for 54 consecutive neoplastic polyps 2-20 mm in size. All pictures were evaluated by four endoscopists according to a published polyp visibility score from four (excellent visibility) to one (poor visibility). Additionally, we calculated CD value between each polyp and surrounding mucosa in LCI and WL using an original software.