GuidelineCanadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie2012
Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy.
Guideline in Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Gastrointestinal Endoscopy-Associated Infections: Update on an Emerging Issue.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Pooled it
- Propofol administration by endoscopists versus anesthesiologists in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient safety outcomes.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2018Pooled it
- Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: Systematic review and clinical practice guideline.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Guideline
- Defining quality indicators for best-practice management of inflammatory bowel disease in Canada.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Guideline
- Colorectal cancer surveillance after index colonoscopy: guidance from the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2013Guideline
- Indicators of safety compromise in gastrointestinal endoscopy.Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie · 2012Guideline
- Artificial intelligence assistance narrows the experience gap in endoscopic reporting of gastric lesions: a prospective clinical trial.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Trial
- Establishing a benchmark for patient comfort during colonoscopy and esophagogastroduodenoscopy using the St. Paul's Endoscopic Comfort Scale (SPECS).Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Lynch syndrome integrative epidemiology and genetics (LINEAGE): rationale for cohort design.Familial cancer · 2026Article
- Reducing endoscopic procedure backlog by improving efficiency: a predictive model and machine learning-based scheduling approach.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Exploring a novel voice-guided artificial intelligence platform for real-time colonoscopy documentation: a pilot study.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Validation of the Saint Paul's Endoscopy Comfort Scale (SPECS) for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Current Pediatric Endoscopy Training Situation in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Collaborative Survey by the Asian Pan-Pacific Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Endoscopy Scientific Subcommittee.Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition · 2024Article
- Strategies to improve screening colonoscopy quality for the prevention of colorectal cancer.The Korean journal of internal medicine · 2024Review
- ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document (ACCORD) explanation and elaboration: Guidance and examples to support reporting consensus methods.PLoS medicine · 2024Article
- An Innovative, Quick and Cost-Effective Technique of Dispensing Endoscopy Reports.Indian journal of otolaryngology and head and neck surgery : official publication of the Association of Otolaryngologists of India · 2023Article
- Quality of Capsule Endoscopy Reporting in Patients Referred for Double Balloon Enteroscopy.Gastroenterology research · 2023Article
- Optimal endoscopic localization of colorectal neoplasms: a comparison of rural versus urban documentation practices.World journal of surgical oncology · 2023Article
- Small Bowel Video Capsule Endoscopy Guidance in Practice: Expert Opinion Report.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023Review
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIncreasing use of gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly for colorectal cancer screening, and increasing emphasis on health care quality, highlight the need for clearly defined, evidence-based processes to support quality improvement in endoscopy.
objectiveTo identify processes and indicators of quality and safety relevant to high-quality endoscopy service delivery.
methodsA multidisciplinary group of 35 voting participants developed recommendation statements and performance indicators. Systematic literature searches generated 50 initial statements that were revised iteratively following a modified Delphi approach using a web-based evaluation and voting tool. Statement development and evidence evaluation followed the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines, REsearch and Evaluation) and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) guidelines. At the consensus conference, participants voted anonymously on all statements using a 6-point scale. Subsequent web-based voting evaluated recommendations for specific, individual quality indicators, safety indicators and mandatory endoscopy reporting fields. Consensus was defined a priori as agreement by 80% of participants.
resultsConsensus was reached on 23 recommendation statements addressing the following: ethics (statement 1: agreement 100%), facility standards and policies (statements 2 to 9: 90% to 100%), quality assurance (statements 10 to 13: 94% to 100%), training, education, competency and privileges (statements 14 to 19: 97% to 100%), endoscopy reporting standards (statements 20 and 21: 97% to 100%) and patient perceptions (statements 22 and 23: 100%). Additionally, 18 quality indicators (agreement 83% to 100%), 20 safety indicators (agreement 77% to 100%) and 23 recommended endoscopy-reporting elements (agreement 91% to 100%) were identified. DISCUSSION: The consensus process identified a clear need for high-quality clinical and outcomes research to support quality improvement in the delivery of endoscopy services.
conclusionsThe guidelines support quality improvement in endoscopy by providing explicit recommendations on systematic monitoring, assessment and modification of endoscopy service delivery to yield benefits for all patients affected by the practice of gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.