Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees.

IF 3 Q2 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Annals of Coloproctology Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.3393/ac.2023.00199.0028
Young Min Song, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Chang Won Hong, Bun Kim, Min Chul Kim, Myeong Jae Jin, Dae Kyung Sohn
{"title":"Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees.","authors":"Young Min Song, Kyung Su Han, Byung Chang Kim, Chang Won Hong, Bun Kim, Min Chul Kim, Myeong Jae Jin, Dae Kyung Sohn","doi":"10.3393/ac.2023.00199.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee's ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees' ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.</p>","PeriodicalId":8267,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Coloproctology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Coloproctology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3393/ac.2023.00199.0028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze adenoma detection rate (ADR) and related quality indicators of colonoscopy among trainees and make recommendations for appropriate colonoscopy training.

Methods: ADR and related indicators of colonoscopies performed by 3 trainees and 5 colonoscopy experts between March and November 2022 were analyzed. These indicators were analyzed in both the entire patients and the screening/surveillance group. In addition, the training period of the 3 trainees was divided into 3 sections, and the changes in these indicators were examined.

Results: The mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 50.6%. In the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the 3 trainees was 51.8%, showing no significant difference from the experts' ADR (53.4%). When the training period was divided into 3 sections and analyzed in the screening/surveillance group, the mean ADR of the trainees gradually increased to 49.4%, 52.6%, and 53.6%, respectively; however, the difference was insignificant. Analyzing each trainee's ADR, there was a significant difference among the 3 trainees (58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%, P=0.008). However, in the third section of the training period, the 3 trainees' ADRs were 53.0%, 49.2%, and 57.3%, respectively, showing no significant difference (P=0.606).

Conclusion: In the early stages of training, the ADR was higher than recommended; however, there were variances in ADR between individuals. As the training period passed, the ADR became similar at the expert level, whereas the difference in ADR between trainees decreased. Therefore, efforts to increase ADR should be made actively from the beginning of training and continued during the training period.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
受训人员结肠镜检查腺瘤检出率分析。
目的:分析受训者结肠镜检查的腺瘤检出率(ADR)和相关质量指标,并提出适当的结肠镜检查培训建议:方法:分析 2022 年 3 月至 11 月期间由 3 名受训人员和 5 名结肠镜检查专家进行的结肠镜检查的腺瘤检出率和相关指标。这些指标在所有患者和筛查/监测组中都进行了分析。此外,还将3名学员的培训期分为3段,研究了这些指标的变化:结果:3 名学员的平均 ADR 为 50.6%。在筛查/监测组,3 名学员的平均 ADR 为 51.8%,与专家的 ADR(53.4%)无显著差异。将培训时间分为三段,分析筛查/监测组时,学员的平均 ADR 分别逐渐上升至 49.4%、52.6% 和 53.6%,但差异并不显著。分析每位学员的 ADR,3 位学员之间存在显著差异(58.5% vs. 44.7% vs. 50.2%,P=0.008)。但在培训期的第三阶段,3 名学员的 ADR 分别为 53.0%、49.2% 和 57.3%,无明显差异(P=0.606):结论:在培训初期,学员的 ADR 高于推荐值,但不同学员之间的 ADR 存在差异。随着培训时间的推移,专家级学员的 ADR 趋于接近,而学员之间的 ADR 差异则有所减小。因此,应从培训一开始就积极努力提高 ADR,并在培训期间继续努力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
73
期刊最新文献
Analysis of adenoma detection rate of colonoscopy among trainees. Colonic stenting: is the bridge to surgery worth its cost? A cost-effectiveness analysis at a single Asian institution. Oncologic outcomes and associated factors of colon cancer patients aged 70 years and older. Colorectal screening following appendectomy in adult patients: a systematic review. Dissection layer selection based on an understanding of pelvic fascial anatomy in transanal total mesorectal excision.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1