Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30943541›Full record

Observational studySouthern medical journal2019

Inconsistencies in Colonic Tattooing Practice: Differences in Reported and Actual Practices at a Tertiary Medical Center.

Joshua P Spaete, Jiayin Zheng, Shein-Chung Chow, Rebecca A Burbridge, Katherine S Garman

Open access · bronzeAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Southern medical journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 25% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Joshua P SpaeteFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Jiayin ZhengFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Shein-Chung ChowFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Rebecca A BurbridgeFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Katherine S GarmanFrom the Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, and the Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
Duke University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAccurate localization of a colonic lesion is crucial to successful resection. Although colonic tattooing is a widely accepted technique to mark lesions for future identification surgery or repeat colonoscopy, no consensus guidelines exist. The objective of this study was to determine whether the current tattooing practice at a tertiary medical center differs from recommendations in the literature and self-reported provider practice.

methodsThe study consisted of an observational retrospective chart review of patients who received colonic tattoos, as well as a provider survey of reported tattooing practices at a tertiary academic medical center. A total of 747 patients older than 18 years of age who underwent colonoscopy with tattoo were included. Forty-four gastroenterologists performing endoscopy were surveyed on tattooing techniques.

resultsIn the majority of cases, neither the number of tattoos, location of the tattoo nor the distance from the lesion was specified within the report. Following the index procedure, a tattoo was detected in 75% of surgical resections and 73% of endoscopies. At the time of surgery, however, the tattoo and/or the lesion was detected approximately 94% of the time. Twenty-five endoscopists (56.8%) completed the survey. Differences were seen the between the chart review and reported practice. Most providers report placing ≥2 marks (87.2%); however, chart review revealed that only 56.2 % were tattooed with ≥2 marks.

conclusionsVariation exists between the reported tattooing practice and actual practice. Despite this, most tattoos are identified at the time of surgery or repeat endoscopy. Further research is needed to determine whether a standardized approach to tattooing and reporting could improve localization at repeat endoscopy.

Indexed as

GastroenterologistsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overColonic PolypsColonoscopyColorectal NeoplasmsDocumentationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Retrospective StudiesTattooingTertiary Care Centers

Identifiers

PMID30943541
PMCPMC6467550
OpenAlexW2930336087

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.