ReviewVisceral medicine2016
Non-Physician Endoscopy: How Far Can We Go?
Review in Visceral medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current methods of nurse-surgeon training and education: Systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2021Review
- Endoscopic Screening for Barrett's Esophagus and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma: Rationale, Candidates, and Challenges.Gastrointestinal endoscopy clinics of North America · 2021Review
- Factors perceived to influence implementation of task shifting in highly specialised healthcare: a theory-based qualitative approach.BMC health services research · 2018Article
- Article
- Assessment of quality indicators among nurse practitioners performing upper endoscopy.Endoscopy international open · 2017Article
- Interventional and Interdisciplinary Endoscopy - Developments and Chances.Visceral medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe delegation of medical tasks to trained nurses is still little discussed in Germany.
methodsTo get a picture of the current extent of non-physician endoscopy worldwide, we performed a systematic literature research. The following databases were used: CINAHL®, Cochrane Library, the German National Library of Medicine (ZB MED), OPAC, DIMDI, PubMed and MEDLINE. The research words were: nurse and practitioners or nurse clinician and diagnosis and organization and administration. Actual journals and references were used to find relevant studies (hand research).
resultsNon-physician endoscopy has been well established in some European countries, in the USA and in several other countries in the western world.
conclusionThe implementation of such programs should be based on solid scientific consideration and evaluated within the framework of the 'delegation rights'.
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.