Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30675501›Full record

ArticleGE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology2018

Quality of Reporting in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Effect of a Simple Audit Intervention.

Pedro Lisboa-Gonçalves, Diogo Libânio, Joana Marques-Antunes, Mário Dinis-Ribeiro, Pedro Pimentel-Nunes

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Pedro Lisboa-GonçalvesCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Diogo LibânioCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Joana Marques-AntunesCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Mário Dinis-RibeiroCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Pedro Pimentel-NunesCenter for Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Universidade do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimIn contrast to colonoscopy, there are few studies regarding upper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy reporting its quality and ways of improving it. Quality audits are recommended, but their influence on the abovementioned quality is not well studied. Our aim was to evaluate the quality of UGI endoscopy reports and assess the effect of a simple audit intervention on UGI endoscopy reporting quality.

methodsThis was a prospective study in a tertiary referral center, including the evaluation of 1,000 consecutive reports of UGI endoscopies before an audit intervention and 250 after. The reports were analyzed according to performance measures defined by three experienced gastroenterologists.

resultsBefore the intervention, 51.8% of the incomplete endoscopies did not present any justification for its incompleteness and 88.1% of lesions were correctly described. Overall, 64.1% of the reports were considered as being of high quality. After the audit intervention, follow-up recommendation (53.4 vs. 80.8%,

conclusionsA simple audit intervention is a good way to improve the quality of reporting of UGI endoscopy, independently of degree and experience. Some of the performance measure accomplishments may depend on the software used by the endoscopy centers and it should be a priority to optimize it.

Indexed as

EsophagogastroduodenoscopyPerformance measureQuality auditSoftware registration

Identifiers

PMID30675501
PMCPMC6341322
OpenAlexW2795562297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.