ArticleClinical endoscopy2016
Feedback Survey of the Effect, Burden, and Cost of the National Endoscopic Quality Assessment Program during the Past 5 Years in Korea.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Education and Training Guidelines for the Board of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy.Clinical endoscopy · 2017Review
- Polyp missing rate and its associated risk factors of referring hospitals for endoscopic resection of advanced colorectal neoplasia.Medicine · 2017Observational
- The Importance of an Endoscopic Quality Assessment Program Reflecting Real Practice.Clinical endoscopy · 2016Article
- How Can We Propagate the National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program and Improve the Quality of Endoscopic Screening?Gut and liver · 2016Article
- How to Improve the Quality of Screening Endoscopy in Korea: National Endoscopy Quality Improvement Program.Clinical endoscopy · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsIn Korea, the nationwide gastric cancer screening program recommends biennial screening for individuals aged 40 years or older by way of either an upper gastrointestinal series or endoscopy. The national endoscopic quality assessment (QA) program began recommending endoscopy in medical institutions in 2009. We aimed to assess the effect, burden, and cost of the QA program from the viewpoint of medical institutions.
methodsWe surveyed the staff of institutional endoscopic units via e-mail.
resultsStaff members from 67 institutions replied. Most doctors were endoscopic specialists. They responded as to whether the QA program raised awareness for endoscopic quality (93%) or improved endoscopic practice (40%). The percentages of responders who reported improvements in the diagnosis of gastric cancer, the qualifications of endoscopists, the quality of facilities and equipment, endoscopic procedure, and endoscopic reprocessing were 69%, 60%, 66%, 82%, and 75%, respectively. Regarding reprocessing, many staff members reported that they had bought new automated endoscopic preprocessors (3%), used more disinfectants (34%), washed endoscopes longer (28%), reduced the number of endoscopies performed to adhere to reprocessing guidelines (9%), and created their own quality education programs (59%). Many responders said they felt that QA was associated with some degree of burden (48%), especially financial burden caused by purchasing new equipment. Reasonable quality standards (45%) and incentives (38%) were considered important to the success of the QA program.
conclusionsEndoscopic quality has improved after 5 years of the mandatory endoscopic QA program.
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.