ReviewVisceral medicine2016
Quality Assurance in Endoscopy: Which Parameters?
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishing a model to measure and predict the quality of gastrointestinal endoscopy.World journal of gastroenterology · 2019Article
- 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe verbalisation of quality standards and parameters by medical societies are relevant for qualitative improvement but may also be an instrument to demand more resources for health care or be a unique characteristic. Within the health care system 3 different quality levels can be defined: structure, process and result quality.
methodsThe current S2k guideline of the German Society for Gastroenterology (quality requirements for gastrointestinal endoscopy) AWMF registry no. 021-022 provides recommendations based on the available evidence for the structure quality (requirements for equipment, human resources) as well as for the process quality (patient preparation, conduct, documentation) and result quality (follow-up of specific endoscopic procedures).
resultsBased on these recommendations, measurable quality indicators/parameters for the endoscopy have been selected and formulated. General quality parameters for endoscopic examinations are given as well as quality parameters for specific procedures for the preparation, conduct, and follow-up of specific endoscopic interventions.
conclusionOnly the regular review of processes and courses by means of defined measurement parameters builds up the basis for corrections based on facts. In addition, the implementation of recommended standards may be an instrument in demanding more resources from the health care system and, therefore, should be embedded as routine.
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.