ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics2016
Digital chromoendoscopy utilization in clinical practice: A survey of gastroenterologists in Connecticut.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal pharmacology and therapeutics, 2016. 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.
- Pathologist, Meet Picasso! Virtual Chromoendoscopy for Detecting Histologic Remission in Ulcerative Colitis.Gastroenterology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo use a survey to characterize and identify potential barriers to the use of digital chromoendoscopy (DC) by practicing gastroenterologists.
methodsAn anonymous, internet-based survey was sent to gastroenterologists in Connecticut who were members of one of three national gastrointestinal organizations. The survey collected demographic information, frequency of DC use, types of procedures that the respondent performs, setting of practice (academic vs community), years out of training, amount of training in DC, desire to have DC training and perceived barriers to DC use. Responses were collected anonymously. The primary endpoint was the proportion of endoscopists utilizing DC. Associations between the various data collected were analyzed using χ(2) test.
resultsOne hundred and twenty-four gastroenterologists (48%) of 261 who received the online survey responded. Seventy-eight percent of surveyed gastroenterologists have used DC during the performance of upper endoscopy and 81% with lower endoscopy. DC was used in more than half of procedures by only 14% of gastroenterologists during upper endoscopy and 12% during lower endoscopy. Twenty-three percent (upper) and 21% (lower) used DC more than one quarter of the time. DC was used for 10% or less of endoscopies by 60% (upper) and 53% (lower) of respondents. Endoscopists reported lack of training as the leading deterrent to DC use with 36% reporting it as their primary deterrent. Eighty-nine percent of endoscopists never received formal training in DC. Lack of time (30% of respondents), lack of evidence (24%) and lack of reimbursement (10%) were additional deterrents. There were no differences in DC use relative to academic vs community practice setting or years out of training.
conclusionDC is used infrequently by most endoscopists, primarily due to a lack of training. Training opportunities should be expanded to meet the interest expressed by the majority of endoscopists.
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.