Nowadays, obesity represents an immense burden for global healthcare. The number of overweight or obese cases has exceeded that of underweight individuals.1 Bariatric surgery is accepted as a safe and effective treatment for patients with morbid obesity and has gained widespread popularity in the past two decades. Advancements in surgical techniques, perioperative care, and fellowship-based bariatric surgery training have substantially reduced morbidity and mortality rates. Nevertheless, several controversial aspects of surgical treatments of morbidly obese patients are still to be considered. Here we discuss the mistakes made when managing patients who are candidates for or have been submitted to bariatric surgery in the preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative periods. As high-level evidence is lacking for many aspects of surgical bariatric care, the discussion is based on our long-standing clinical experience.

Abdominal distension and bloating are among the most frequently misunderstood complaints in gastroenterology. They are often used as interchangeable terms, a conceptual mistake that continues to drive diagnostic errors and ineffective treatment. According to Rome IV, bloating and distension may represent either a primary disorder of gut–brain interaction (DGBI) or occur as symptoms with other DGBIs, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), functional dyspepsia (FD) or functional constipation (FC).

The coordination of smooth muscle and nerve function in the gastrointestinal tract is crucial for digestion and waste disposal. Disorders in this process can lead to chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO), a severe condition where the intestines fail to propel contents. Managing CIPO involves improving intestinal motility, maintaining nutrition, treating complications, managing exacerbations, and carefully considering invasive procedures. This article focuses on common mistakes in CIPO diagnosis and management, offering evidence-based insights and clinical experience.

Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by gluten, which activates an immune reaction against the autoantigen tissue transglutaminase (TG2) in genetically predisposed subjects. Genetic susceptibility to coeliac disease has been proven by its close linkage with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2 and DQ8 haplotypes. The identification of biomarkers for coeliac disease (e.g. endomysial antibodies [EmA] and antibodies to TG2 [anti-TG2]) has changed the epidemiology of coeliac disease from being a rare to a frequent condition, with an expected prevalence of 1% in the worldwide population. Coeliac disease can be difficult to diagnose because symptoms vary from patient to patient, and the majority of patients who have coeliac disease remain undiagnosed. Small intestinal biopsy remains the gold standard for coeliac disease diagnosis, and a delayed diagnosis in the elderly can be considered a risk factor for complications. Complicated coeliac disease is not so frequent, but for those who have it, the prognosis is very poor, with a low rate of survival after 5 years.

Biological therapy has revolutionised the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), namely Crohn’s disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC). However, up to one-third of patients with IBD are primary non-responders, and up to half can lose response over time.These unwanted outcomes can be explained by either pharmacodynamic (mechanistic failure) or pharmacokinetic (PK) issues with or without the development of anti-drug antibodies (ADA), so-called immunogenicity.1 Reactive therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM), defined as the measurement of drug concentrations and anti-drug antibody (ADA) levels in the setting of primary non-response (PNR) or secondary loss of response (SLR), can help to explain better and manage these unwanted outcomes. However, it would make sense to try to prevent PNR and SLR by routinely measuring drug concentrations and ADA to achieve and maintain a targeted therapeutic drug concentration, the so-called proactive TDM. Here we discuss some common mistakes and significant errors to avoid when utilising TDM of biologics in patients with IBD. The discussion is based on evidence, whenever possible, and our clinical experience and perception of the field.

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) affects approximately 0.5% to 1% of the population, a prevalence that challenges healthcare systems where it is too rare for primary care but common enough for general gastroenterologists. While some patients experience mild symptoms, others suffer from severe, disabling symptoms and unpredictable disease progression, necessitating a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to management. Recent advances in understanding IBD pathogenesis, diagnostics, therapies, and surgical techniques have significantly changed IBD management. This Mistakes In article explores common pitfalls in treating IBD, highlighting the complexities and challenges faced by clinicians, and draws on evidence and clinical experience to suggest improvements in patient outcomes.