ArticlePerspectives on medical education2014
Endoscopist-related factors contributing to high-quality colonoscopy: results of a Delphi survey.
Article in Perspectives on medical education, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Factors defining expertise in screening colonoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Education and competency assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy is important. Concerning colonoscopy, it is not completely clear what the best way is to learn this procedure, what defines competency in colonoscopy, and which factors define a high-quality colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to determine the endoscopist-related factors that define a high-quality colonoscopy. A three-round Delphi survey among expert endoscopists was carried out. In round 1, the panel was invited to identify factors essential for a good colonoscopy. The listed factors were to be ranked during the second round. In the third round, a 5-point Likert scale was added. A reference panel was invited to assess the items as well. 14 expert endoscopists from the Netherlands were invited, of whom eight participated (57 %). A list of 30 items important for colonoscopy was formulated. After the following rounds, consensus was reached on 16 items. Validation was conducted among eight trainees and eight experienced endoscopists (response 100 %). The groups agreed on the importance of all but one factor (p = 0.001). This Delphi survey has made explicit the endoscopist-related factors that are important for optimal colonoscopy. This might provide trainers more support regarding concrete competency assessment of trainees in endoscopy.
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.