ArticleEndoscopy international open2017
Factors defining expertise in screening colonoscopy.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2017. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsThere is very little literature defining characteristics of expert endoscopists. It is hypothesised that previously undetermined human factors may correlate with high performance in screening colonoscopists. The aim of this study was to determine factors contributing towards expertise in screening colonoscopy. MATERIALS AND
methodsA focus group was used to hypothesise skills considered to be relevant to high performance in colonoscopy. The skills were then ranked in order of importance by an independent group of screening colonoscopists for both diagnostic and therapeutic colonoscopy. Twenty screening colonoscopists subsequently participated in individual semi-structured interviews to explore participants' views of expertise and the factors contributing to it. Data extracted from the interview transcripts were used to identify the thematic framework associated with expertise.
resultsThe 5 initial highest-ranked themes were low complication rates, high adenoma detection rates, interpersonal skills with staff, communication skills, and manner with patients. Interviewees considered technical skills (20/20), previous experience of colonoscopy (19/20), judgment/decision-making (18/20), communication (18/20), teamwork (15/20), resources (11/20) and leadership (8/20) to be the most important themes related to expertise.
conclusionsBoth technical and non-technical abilities are considered essential components of expertise by experienced colonoscopists. Further research into targeted interventions to improve the rate of acquisition of these skills in training endoscopists may be useful in improving performance.
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.