结肠胶囊内镜检查中息肉匹配标准的合理化:通过 RAND(修改后的 DELPHI)程序达成的国际专家共识。

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology Pub Date : 2024-06-12 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/17562848241242681
Ian Io Lei, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Gunnar Baatrup, Mark Samaan, Ioanna Parisi, Mark McAlindon, Ervin Toth, Aasma Shaukat, Ursula Valentiner, Konstantinos John Dabos, Ignacio Fernandez, Alexander Robertson, Benedicte Schelde-Olesen, Nicholas Parsons, Ramesh P Arasaradnam
{"title":"结肠胶囊内镜检查中息肉匹配标准的合理化:通过 RAND(修改后的 DELPHI)程序达成的国际专家共识。","authors":"Ian Io Lei, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Gunnar Baatrup, Mark Samaan, Ioanna Parisi, Mark McAlindon, Ervin Toth, Aasma Shaukat, Ursula Valentiner, Konstantinos John Dabos, Ignacio Fernandez, Alexander Robertson, Benedicte Schelde-Olesen, Nicholas Parsons, Ramesh P Arasaradnam","doi":"10.1177/17562848241242681","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic qualitative study using surveys.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.</p>","PeriodicalId":48770,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11179528/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rationalizing polyp matching criteria in colon capsule endoscopy: an international expert consensus through RAND (modified DELPHI) process.\",\"authors\":\"Ian Io Lei, Anastasios Koulaouzidis, Gunnar Baatrup, Mark Samaan, Ioanna Parisi, Mark McAlindon, Ervin Toth, Aasma Shaukat, Ursula Valentiner, Konstantinos John Dabos, Ignacio Fernandez, Alexander Robertson, Benedicte Schelde-Olesen, Nicholas Parsons, Ramesh P Arasaradnam\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17562848241242681\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A systematic qualitative study using surveys.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48770,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11179528/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241242681\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17562848241242681","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:结肠胶囊内窥镜检查(CCE)作为下消化道检查的一种替代方式,其发展势头迅猛。在仍然存在的少数挑战中,比较并最终匹配不同时间戳的息肉有可能导致重复报告,并可能造成假阳性结果和不准确性。随着人工智能整合的即将到来,由于缺乏空间方位信息而导致重复报告同一息肉的风险凸显了建立息肉匹配标准的必要性:兰德公司/加州大学洛杉矶分校(改良德尔菲法)的这一流程旨在确定用于匹配 CCE 视频中息肉的关键因素或组成部分。这包括探索每个因素的属性,以便在国际专家共识的基础上制定全面的息肉匹配标准:设计:通过调查进行系统的定性研究:方法:由 11 位国际 CCE 专家组成的小组对一项包含 60 条陈述的调查进行评估。参与者以匿名方式按 1-9 级(1-3 级:不恰当;4-6 级:不确定;7-9 级:恰当)对声明的恰当性进行评分。在对第一轮结果进行虚拟小组讨论后,制定并完成了第二轮调查,然后进行最终分析:大家一致认为息肉匹配的基本要素包括:(1) 时间戳;(2) 息肉定位;(3) 息肉血管形态;(4) 息肉大小;(5) 息肉出现在绿色和黄色相机之间的时间间隔;(6) 周围组织;(7) 息肉形态;(8) 息肉表面和轮廓。当满足五项或五项以上因素时,则认为比较的息肉很可能是同一个息肉:本研究首次建立了完整的 CCE 息肉匹配标准。结论:这项研究首次建立了完整的 CCE 息肉匹配标准,虽然它可能无法为疑难息肉、小息肉和常见息肉的匹配提供明确的解决方案,但这些标准可作为指导和促进息肉匹配过程的框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Rationalizing polyp matching criteria in colon capsule endoscopy: an international expert consensus through RAND (modified DELPHI) process.

Background: Colon capsule endoscopy (CCE) has gained momentum as an alternative modality for the investigation of the lower gastrointestinal tract. Of the few challenges that remain, the comparison and - eventually - matching of polyps at different timestamps leads to the potential for double reporting and can contribute to false-positive findings and inaccuracies. With the impending artificial intelligence integration, the risk of double reporting the same polyp due to the lack of information on spatial orientation underscores the necessity for establishing criteria for polyp matching.

Objectives: This RAND/University of California, Los Angeles (modified Delphi) process aims to identify the key factors or components used to match polyps within a CCE video. This involves exploring the attributes of each factor to create comprehensive polyp-matching criteria based on international expert consensus.

Design: A systematic qualitative study using surveys.

Methods: A panel of 11 international CCE experts convened to assess a survey comprised of 60 statements. Participants anonymously rated statement appropriateness on a 1-9 scale (1-3: inappropriate, 4-6: uncertain and 7-9: appropriate). Following a virtual group discussion of the Round 1 results, a Round 2 survey was developed and completed before the final analysis.

Results: The factors that were agreed to be essential for polyp matching include (1) timestamp, (2) polyp localization, (3) polyp vascular pattern, (4) polyp size, (5) time interval of the polyp appearance between the green and yellow camera, (6) surrounding tissue, (7) polyp morphology and (8) polyp surface and contour. When five or more factors are satisfied, it was agreed that the comparing polyps are likely the same polyp.

Conclusion: This study has established the first complete criteria for polyp matching in CCE. While it might not provide a definitive solution for matching difficult, small and common polyps, these criteria serve as a framework to guide and facilitate the process of polyp-matching.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology
Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
2.40%
发文量
103
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology is an open access journal which delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed original research articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies in the medical treatment of gastrointestinal and hepatic disorders. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at an international audience of clinicians and researchers in gastroenterology and related disciplines, providing an online forum for rapid dissemination of recent research and perspectives in this area. The editors welcome original research articles across all areas of gastroenterology and hepatology. The journal publishes original research articles and review articles primarily. Original research manuscripts may include laboratory, animal or human/clinical studies – all phases. Letters to the Editor and Case Reports will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Characteristics, clinical outcomes, and prognostic factors of colorectal cancer in patients with Crohn's disease: American versus Korean tertiary referral center perspectives. Artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies in ulcerative colitis. Weekend endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography has similar outcomes as weekday procedures-a propensity score match analysis of the Hungarian ERCP Registry. Effectiveness of autologous emulsified stromal vascular fraction tissue injection for the treatment of complex perianal fistulas in inflammatory bowel diseases patients: a pilot study. Depression influences fatigue in inflammatory bowel disease amongst other factors: a structural modelling approach.
×
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