国家内窥镜数据库概述:Trans.IT 数据库及其对数据登记质量的影响。

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY United European Gastroenterology Journal Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-27 DOI:10.1002/ueg2.12669
F Theunissen, P C J Ter Borg, R J T Ouwendijk, M J Bruno, P D Siersema
{"title":"国家内窥镜数据库概述:Trans.IT 数据库及其对数据登记质量的影响。","authors":"F Theunissen, P C J Ter Borg, R J T Ouwendijk, M J Bruno, P D Siersema","doi":"10.1002/ueg2.12669","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Trans.IT database is a national gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy database developed in 2012. It automatically collects anonymous data from GI endoscopy procedures in a centralized database. All endoscopists use a structured reporting tool for uniform data collection. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the database and to evaluate its impact on data registration quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used all ERCPs, colonoscopies and colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening colonoscopies performed between 2016 and 2020. We excluded centers joining after 2016 and patients below age 18. Data registration quality for ERCPs included completeness of data for: intention of ERCP, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status (virgin or previous sphincterotomy), cannulation (success or failure to cannulate the desired duct) and procedural success. For colonoscopies: indication, ASA-classification, Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), cecal intubation, polyp detection rate (PDR). For CRC-screening colonoscopies, ASA-classification, BBPS, cecal intubation, PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14,156 ERCPs, 150,962 colonoscopies and 37,199 colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies were included in our analysis. For ERCPs, registration of procedural intention, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status, cannulation and procedural success improved from 34.9%, 32.7%, 72.6%, 36.5%, 34.6%, 27.2% in 2016, to 86.4%, 84.6%, 97.4%, 86.4%, 82.1%, 84.0%, respectively, in 2020. For non-screening colonoscopies, registration of indication, ASA classification, BBPS, cecal intubation and PDR improved from 40.4%, 60.5%, 47.6%, 69.8% and 32.3% in 2016 to 90.3%, 88.9%, 59.8%, 79.1% and 39.1%, respectively, in 2020. For CRC-cancer screening colonoscopy registration equaled outcome, PDR and ADR changed from 74.7% to 63.6% in 2016 to 66.3% and 53.8% in 2020, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of endoscopy data registration has consistently improved over the years by using the Trans.IT database. This is most likely the result of feedback to performing endoscopists to review performance in real-time online and progressive awareness of quality of data registration.</p>","PeriodicalId":23444,"journal":{"name":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","volume":" ","pages":"1200-1210"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11578836/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality.\",\"authors\":\"F Theunissen, P C J Ter Borg, R J T Ouwendijk, M J Bruno, P D Siersema\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ueg2.12669\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Trans.IT database is a national gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy database developed in 2012. It automatically collects anonymous data from GI endoscopy procedures in a centralized database. All endoscopists use a structured reporting tool for uniform data collection. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the database and to evaluate its impact on data registration quality.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used all ERCPs, colonoscopies and colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening colonoscopies performed between 2016 and 2020. We excluded centers joining after 2016 and patients below age 18. Data registration quality for ERCPs included completeness of data for: intention of ERCP, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status (virgin or previous sphincterotomy), cannulation (success or failure to cannulate the desired duct) and procedural success. For colonoscopies: indication, ASA-classification, Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), cecal intubation, polyp detection rate (PDR). For CRC-screening colonoscopies, ASA-classification, BBPS, cecal intubation, PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 14,156 ERCPs, 150,962 colonoscopies and 37,199 colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies were included in our analysis. For ERCPs, registration of procedural intention, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status, cannulation and procedural success improved from 34.9%, 32.7%, 72.6%, 36.5%, 34.6%, 27.2% in 2016, to 86.4%, 84.6%, 97.4%, 86.4%, 82.1%, 84.0%, respectively, in 2020. For non-screening colonoscopies, registration of indication, ASA classification, BBPS, cecal intubation and PDR improved from 40.4%, 60.5%, 47.6%, 69.8% and 32.3% in 2016 to 90.3%, 88.9%, 59.8%, 79.1% and 39.1%, respectively, in 2020. For CRC-cancer screening colonoscopy registration equaled outcome, PDR and ADR changed from 74.7% to 63.6% in 2016 to 66.3% and 53.8% in 2020, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The quality of endoscopy data registration has consistently improved over the years by using the Trans.IT database. This is most likely the result of feedback to performing endoscopists to review performance in real-time online and progressive awareness of quality of data registration.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"United European Gastroenterology Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1200-1210\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11578836/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"United European Gastroenterology Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12669\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"United European Gastroenterology Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ueg2.12669","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:Trans.IT数据库是2012年开发的一个全国性消化道(GI)内窥镜数据库。该数据库自动将消化道内窥镜检查过程中的匿名数据收集到中央数据库中。所有内镜医师都使用结构化报告工具统一收集数据。在本研究中,我们旨在概述该数据库,并评估其对数据登记质量的影响:我们使用了 2016 年至 2020 年期间进行的所有 ERCP、结肠镜检查和结直肠癌(CRC)筛查结肠镜检查。我们排除了2016年后加入的中心和18岁以下的患者。ERCP的数据登记质量包括以下方面数据的完整性:ERCP的意图、Schutz评分、ASA分类、乳头状态(处女或曾做过括约肌切开术)、插管(成功或失败插入所需导管)和手术成功率。结肠镜检查:适应症、ASA 分级、波士顿肠道准备评分(BBPS)、盲肠插管、息肉检出率(PDR)。CRC筛查结肠镜检查的适应症、波士顿肠道准备评分(BBPS)、盲肠插管、息肉检出率(PDR)和腺瘤检出率(ADR):结果:共有 14,156 例 ERCP、150,962 例结肠镜检查和 37,199 例结直肠癌筛查结肠镜检查纳入分析。就ERCP而言,手术意向登记、舒兹评分、ASA分类、乳头状态、插管和手术成功率分别从2016年的34.9%、32.7%、72.6%、36.5%、34.6%、27.2%提高到2020年的86.4%、84.6%、97.4%、86.4%、82.1%、84.0%。对于非筛查结肠镜检查,适应症、ASA分类、BBPS、盲肠插管和PDR的登记率分别从2016年的40.4%、60.5%、47.6%、69.8%和32.3%提高到2020年的90.3%、88.9%、59.8%、79.1%和39.1%。对于 CRC 癌症筛查结肠镜检查登记等效结果、PDR 和 ADR,分别从 2016 年的 74.7% 至 63.6% 变为 2020 年的 66.3% 和 53.8%:多年来,通过使用 Trans.IT 数据库,内镜数据登记的质量不断提高。结论:通过使用 Trans.IT 数据库,内镜检查数据登记的质量在过去几年中不断提高,这很可能是对内镜医师进行实时在线绩效审查的反馈以及对数据登记质量的逐步认识的结果。
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
Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality.

Background: The Trans.IT database is a national gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy database developed in 2012. It automatically collects anonymous data from GI endoscopy procedures in a centralized database. All endoscopists use a structured reporting tool for uniform data collection. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the database and to evaluate its impact on data registration quality.

Methods: We used all ERCPs, colonoscopies and colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening colonoscopies performed between 2016 and 2020. We excluded centers joining after 2016 and patients below age 18. Data registration quality for ERCPs included completeness of data for: intention of ERCP, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status (virgin or previous sphincterotomy), cannulation (success or failure to cannulate the desired duct) and procedural success. For colonoscopies: indication, ASA-classification, Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), cecal intubation, polyp detection rate (PDR). For CRC-screening colonoscopies, ASA-classification, BBPS, cecal intubation, PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Results: A total of 14,156 ERCPs, 150,962 colonoscopies and 37,199 colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies were included in our analysis. For ERCPs, registration of procedural intention, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status, cannulation and procedural success improved from 34.9%, 32.7%, 72.6%, 36.5%, 34.6%, 27.2% in 2016, to 86.4%, 84.6%, 97.4%, 86.4%, 82.1%, 84.0%, respectively, in 2020. For non-screening colonoscopies, registration of indication, ASA classification, BBPS, cecal intubation and PDR improved from 40.4%, 60.5%, 47.6%, 69.8% and 32.3% in 2016 to 90.3%, 88.9%, 59.8%, 79.1% and 39.1%, respectively, in 2020. For CRC-cancer screening colonoscopy registration equaled outcome, PDR and ADR changed from 74.7% to 63.6% in 2016 to 66.3% and 53.8% in 2020, respectively.

Conclusions: The quality of endoscopy data registration has consistently improved over the years by using the Trans.IT database. This is most likely the result of feedback to performing endoscopists to review performance in real-time online and progressive awareness of quality of data registration.

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
United European Gastroenterology Journal
United European Gastroenterology Journal GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
10.50
自引率
13.30%
发文量
147
期刊介绍: United European Gastroenterology Journal (UEG Journal) is the official Journal of the United European Gastroenterology (UEG), a professional non-profit organisation combining all the leading European societies concerned with digestive disease. UEG’s member societies represent over 22,000 specialists working across medicine, surgery, paediatrics, GI oncology and endoscopy, which makes UEG a unique platform for collaboration and the exchange of knowledge.
期刊最新文献
Tonsillar Crohn's Disease. Guideline for the assessment and management of gastrointestinal symptoms following colorectal surgery-A UEG/ESCP/EAES/ESPCG/ESPEN/ESNM/ESSO collaboration. Part I-Sequelae to oncological diseases. Nodular Regenerative Hyperplasia: Report of 82 Patients and Systematic Review of Literature. Risk of Cancer Diagnosis in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis Using a Nationwide Swedish Population Cohort. Expanding Support Beyond Clinical Care in IBD Patients.
×
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