Barrett食管诊断和监测质量指标的依从性:Barrett专家和非专家的比较研究

IF 1.2 Q4 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tige.2023.02.008
Domenico A. Farina , Claire A. Beveridge , Leila Kia , Elizabeth Gray , Srinadh Komanduri
{"title":"Barrett食管诊断和监测质量指标的依从性:Barrett专家和非专家的比较研究","authors":"Domenico A. Farina ,&nbsp;Claire A. Beveridge ,&nbsp;Leila Kia ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Gray ,&nbsp;Srinadh Komanduri","doi":"10.1016/j.tige.2023.02.008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><p>There is considerable variability in adherence to endoscopic quality indicators (QIs) for Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aims of this study were to (1) assess adherence to published Qis for diagnosis and surveillance of BE, (2) compare adherence between BE experts and nonexperts, and (3) identify factors associated with adherence.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>We identified all patients with BE on esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2010 and 2018. QIs evaluated included inspection using high-definition white light </span>endoscopy<span>, use of the Prague Classification, identification of endoscopic landmarks, use of the Seattle Protocol, and guideline-adherent recommendations for surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy. BE experts and nonexperts were compared using logistic mixed-effects models.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 467 patients were identified, with BE experts performing fewer overall esophagogastroduodenoscopies (n = 162, 34.7% vs n = 305, 65.3%). Whereas BE experts were more likely to document Prague Classification (52.5% vs 41.3%; <em>P</em> = 0.017) and landmarks (43.2% vs 22.6%; <em>P</em><span> = 0.036), there was no significant difference between experts and nonexperts in use of high-definition white light endoscopy (8.6% vs 3.3%; </span><em>P</em> = 0.123), Seattle Protocol (48.1% vs 40.3%; <em>P</em><span> = 0.313), or guideline-adherent surveillance or treatment recommendations (71.0% vs 67.5%; </span><em>P</em> = 0.509). Patient enrollment in a BE surveillance program was the only factor associated with improved QI adherence, specifically adherence to Prague Classification documentation (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08-3.14; <em>P</em> = 0.025), Seattle Protocol (1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.50; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), and follow-up recommendations (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.55-4.48; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patterns of adherence to published QIs for endoscopy in patients with BE are mostly independent of expertise. Further training initiatives are needed to standardize the performance of endoscopic practice in patients with BE.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":36169,"journal":{"name":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","volume":"25 3","pages":"Pages 204-212"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adherence to Quality Indicators for Diagnosis and Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus: A Comparative Study of Barrett's Experts and Nonexperts\",\"authors\":\"Domenico A. Farina ,&nbsp;Claire A. Beveridge ,&nbsp;Leila Kia ,&nbsp;Elizabeth Gray ,&nbsp;Srinadh Komanduri\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tige.2023.02.008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><p>There is considerable variability in adherence to endoscopic quality indicators (QIs) for Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aims of this study were to (1) assess adherence to published Qis for diagnosis and surveillance of BE, (2) compare adherence between BE experts and nonexperts, and (3) identify factors associated with adherence.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span>We identified all patients with BE on esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2010 and 2018. QIs evaluated included inspection using high-definition white light </span>endoscopy<span>, use of the Prague Classification, identification of endoscopic landmarks, use of the Seattle Protocol, and guideline-adherent recommendations for surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy. BE experts and nonexperts were compared using logistic mixed-effects models.</span></p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 467 patients were identified, with BE experts performing fewer overall esophagogastroduodenoscopies (n = 162, 34.7% vs n = 305, 65.3%). Whereas BE experts were more likely to document Prague Classification (52.5% vs 41.3%; <em>P</em> = 0.017) and landmarks (43.2% vs 22.6%; <em>P</em><span> = 0.036), there was no significant difference between experts and nonexperts in use of high-definition white light endoscopy (8.6% vs 3.3%; </span><em>P</em> = 0.123), Seattle Protocol (48.1% vs 40.3%; <em>P</em><span> = 0.313), or guideline-adherent surveillance or treatment recommendations (71.0% vs 67.5%; </span><em>P</em> = 0.509). Patient enrollment in a BE surveillance program was the only factor associated with improved QI adherence, specifically adherence to Prague Classification documentation (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08-3.14; <em>P</em> = 0.025), Seattle Protocol (1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.50; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), and follow-up recommendations (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.55-4.48; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Patterns of adherence to published QIs for endoscopy in patients with BE are mostly independent of expertise. Further training initiatives are needed to standardize the performance of endoscopic practice in patients with BE.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36169,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"volume\":\"25 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 204-212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590030723000247\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Techniques and Innovations in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590030723000247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的Barrett食管(BE)内镜质量指标(QIs)的依从性存在相当大的差异。本研究的目的是(1)评估对已发表的用于BE诊断和监测的Qis的依从性,(2)比较BE专家和非专家之间的依从性;(3)确定与依从性相关的因素。方法我们确定了2010年至2018年间所有接受食管胃十二指肠镜检查的BE患者。评估的QIs包括使用高清晰度白光内窥镜检查、布拉格分类法的使用、内窥镜标志物的识别、西雅图方案的使用以及监测或内窥镜根除治疗的指南遵循建议。BE专家和非专家使用逻辑混合效应模型进行比较。结果共发现467例患者,BE专家进行的食管胃十二指肠镜检查较少(n=162,34.7%vs n=305,65.3%)。而BE专家更有可能记录布拉格分类(52.5%vs 41.3%;P=0.017)和标志(43.2%vs 22.6%;P=0.036),专家和非专家在使用高清白光内窥镜检查(8.6%vs 3.3%;P=0.123)、西雅图方案(48.1%vs 40.3%;P=0.313)或指南依从性监测或治疗建议(71.0%vs 67.5%;P=0.509)方面没有显著差异。BE监测项目的患者登记是改善QI依从性的唯一因素,特别是遵守布拉格分类文件(OR 1.85,95%CI 1.08-3.14;P=0.025)、西雅图方案(1.28,95%CI1.16-1.50;P<;0.001)和随访建议(OR 2.64,95%CI1.55-4.48;P<)。需要进一步的培训举措来规范BE患者的内镜实践。
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
Adherence to Quality Indicators for Diagnosis and Surveillance of Barrett's Esophagus: A Comparative Study of Barrett's Experts and Nonexperts

Background and Aims

There is considerable variability in adherence to endoscopic quality indicators (QIs) for Barrett's esophagus (BE). The aims of this study were to (1) assess adherence to published Qis for diagnosis and surveillance of BE, (2) compare adherence between BE experts and nonexperts, and (3) identify factors associated with adherence.

Methods

We identified all patients with BE on esophagogastroduodenoscopy between 2010 and 2018. QIs evaluated included inspection using high-definition white light endoscopy, use of the Prague Classification, identification of endoscopic landmarks, use of the Seattle Protocol, and guideline-adherent recommendations for surveillance or endoscopic eradication therapy. BE experts and nonexperts were compared using logistic mixed-effects models.

Results

A total of 467 patients were identified, with BE experts performing fewer overall esophagogastroduodenoscopies (n = 162, 34.7% vs n = 305, 65.3%). Whereas BE experts were more likely to document Prague Classification (52.5% vs 41.3%; P = 0.017) and landmarks (43.2% vs 22.6%; P = 0.036), there was no significant difference between experts and nonexperts in use of high-definition white light endoscopy (8.6% vs 3.3%; P = 0.123), Seattle Protocol (48.1% vs 40.3%; P = 0.313), or guideline-adherent surveillance or treatment recommendations (71.0% vs 67.5%; P = 0.509). Patient enrollment in a BE surveillance program was the only factor associated with improved QI adherence, specifically adherence to Prague Classification documentation (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.08-3.14; P = 0.025), Seattle Protocol (1.28, 95% CI 1.16-1.50; P < 0.001), and follow-up recommendations (OR 2.64, 95% CI 1.55-4.48; P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Patterns of adherence to published QIs for endoscopy in patients with BE are mostly independent of expertise. Further training initiatives are needed to standardize the performance of endoscopic practice in patients with BE.

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
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
50.00%
发文量
60
期刊最新文献
Endoscopic Repair for Sleeve Gastrectomy Leaks Is Associated With a High Rate of Leak Resolution The Endoscopic Role and Indications of Through-the-Scope Tack and Suture System for Gastrointestinal Closure Endoscopic Transpapillary Gallbladder Drainage With 2 Stents Versus 1 Stent Reduces Reinterventions: A Multicenter Study Editorial Board Table of Contents
×
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