ArticleNeurogastroenterology and motility2017
Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry.
Article in Neurogastroenterology and motility, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Esophageal Manometry Competency Program Improves Gastroenterology Fellow Performance in Motility Interpretation.The American journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
- New Developments in Esophageal Motility Testing.Current treatment options in gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Expert consensus document: Advances in the management of oesophageal motility disorders in the era of high-resolution manometry: a focus on achalasia syndromes.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2017Review
- High-resolution esophageal manometry: interpretation in clinical practice.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCompetent interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level.
methodsA total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups-expert test-takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees ("trainee test-taker"; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test-takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test-taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills. KEY
resultsThe HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65-80%, 85-90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90-95%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Using a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.
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.