缩小差距:结肠镜检查报告实践中的坚持、不一致和改进的批判性研究》(Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices)。
Thomas J Lux, Katja Herold, Ioannis Kafetzis, Phillip Sodmann, Zita Sassmanshausen, Alexander Meining, Alexander Hann
{"title":"缩小差距:结肠镜检查报告实践中的坚持、不一致和改进的批判性研究》(Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices)。","authors":"Thomas J Lux, Katja Herold, Ioannis Kafetzis, Phillip Sodmann, Zita Sassmanshausen, Alexander Meining, Alexander Hann","doi":"10.1159/000538113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.</p>","PeriodicalId":11315,"journal":{"name":"Digestion","volume":" ","pages":"224-231"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151964/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas J Lux, Katja Herold, Ioannis Kafetzis, Phillip Sodmann, Zita Sassmanshausen, Alexander Meining, Alexander Hann\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000538113\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Digestion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"224-231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11151964/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Digestion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538113\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Digestion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000538113","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Closing the Gap: A Critical Examination of Adherence, Inconsistency, and Improvements in Colonoscopy Reporting Practices.
Introduction: Comprehensive and standardized colonoscopy reports are crucial in colorectal cancer prevention, monitoring, and research. This study investigates adherence to national and international guidelines by analyzing reporting practices among 21 endoscopists in 7 German centers, with a focus on polyp reporting.
Methods: We identified and assessed German, European, American, and World Health Organization-provided statements to identify key elements in colonoscopy reporting. Board-certified gastroenterologists rated the relevance of each element and estimated their reporting frequency. Adherence to the identified report elements was evaluated for 874 polyps from 351 colonoscopy reports ranging from March 2021 to March 2022.
Results: We identified numerous recommendations for colonoscopy reporting. We categorized the reasoning behind those recommendations into clinical relevance, justification, and quality control and research. Although all elements were considered relevant by the surveyed gastroenterologists, discrepancies were observed in the evaluated reports. Particularly diminutive polyps or attributes which are rarely abnormal (e.g., surface integrity) respectively rarely performed (e.g., injection) were sparsely documented. Furthermore, the white light morphology of polyps was inconsistently documented using either the Paris classification or free text. In summary, the analysis of 874 reported polyps revealed heterogeneous adherence to the recommendations, with reporting frequencies ranging from 3% to 89%.
Conclusion: The inhomogeneous report practices may result from implicit reporting practices and recommendations with varying clinical relevance. Future recommendations should clearly differentiate between clinical relevance and research and quality control or explanatory purposes. Additionally, the role of computer-assisted documentation should be further evaluated to increase report frequencies of non-pathological findings and diminutive polyps.
期刊介绍:
''Digestion'' concentrates on clinical research reports: in addition to editorials and reviews, the journal features sections on Stomach/Esophagus, Bowel, Neuro-Gastroenterology, Liver/Bile, Pancreas, Metabolism/Nutrition and Gastrointestinal Oncology. Papers cover physiology in humans, metabolic studies and clinical work on the etiology, diagnosis, and therapy of human diseases. It is thus especially cut out for gastroenterologists employed in hospitals and outpatient units. Moreover, the journal''s coverage of studies on the metabolism and effects of therapeutic drugs carries considerable value for clinicians and investigators beyond the immediate field of gastroenterology.