ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2014
Quality evaluation through self-assessment: a novel method to gain insight into ERCP performance.
Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2024Review
- Quality Indicators of Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography in Korea.Gut and liver · 2024Review
- Article
- Impact of ERCP simulator training on early ERCP learning curves of novice trainees: a cohort study.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Quality indicators in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography: a brief review of established guidelines.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- UK Joint Advisory Group consensus statements for training and certification in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Influence of video-based feedback on self-assessment accuracy of endoscopic skills: a randomized controlled trial.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Training in Endoscopy.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2018Review
- How to measure quality in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP).Annals of translational medicine · 2018Review
- ERCP PERFORMANCE IN A TERTIARY BRAZILIAN CENTER: FOCUS ON NEW RISK FACTORS, COMPLICATIONS AND QUALITY INDICATORS.Arquivos brasileiros de cirurgia digestiva : ABCD = Brazilian archives of digestive surgery · 2018Observational
- ERCP competence assessment: Miles to go before standardization.Endoscopy international open · 2017Article
- Safe endoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Committee on Outcomes Research has recommended monitoring nine endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-specific quality indicators for quality assurance in ERCP. With the development of a self-assessment tool for ERCP (Rotterdam Assessment Form for ERCP-RAF-E), key indicators can easily be assessed.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to test in daily practice an easy-to-use form for assessment of procedural quality in ERCP and to determine ERCP quality outcomes in a tertiary referral hospital.
designThis was a prospective study carried out in a tertiary referral hospital. In January 2008, a quality self-assessment programme was started. Five qualified endoscopists participated in this study. All ERCPs were appraised using RAF-E. Primary parameters were common bile duct (CBD) cannulation rate and procedural success. The indication was classified and procedural difficulty was graded; success rates of therapeutic interventions were measured for all different difficulty degrees.
resultsA total number of 1691 ERCPs were performed. 1515 (89.6%) of these were appraised using RAF-E. Median CBD cannulation success rate was 94.1%. Successful sphincterotomy was accomplished in almost all patients (median 100%; range 98.2-100%). Stent placement was successful in 97.8% and complete stone extraction, if indicated, was achieved in 86.8%.
conclusionsQuality indicators for ERCP can be measured using the Rotterdam self-assessment programme for ERCP. Outcome data in ERCPs obtained with this RAF-E provide insight into the quality of individual as well as group performance and can be used to assess and set standards for quality control in ERCP.
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.