ReviewFrontline gastroenterology2019
British Society of Gastroenterology Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme (BSG EQIP): Implementing new endoscopic techniques and technologies into clinical practice.
Review in Frontline gastroenterology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic Review of Innovation Reporting in Endoscopic Sleeve Gastroplasty.Obesity surgery · 2021Pooled it
- Simethicone administration improves gastric cleanness for esophagogastroduodenoscopy: a randomized clinical trial.Trials · 2021Trial
- "It ain't over … till it's over!" Risk-mitigation strategies for patients with gastrointestinal diseases in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopy has rapidly evolved from a diagnostic modality to a therapeutic tool with the advent of new technologies (medical devices or imaging) and techniques (types of procedures). Although the rapid advancement of technology is welcomed, this can pose its own problems if there is no robust system in place to assess the safety and efficacy of new endoscopic devices or practices or guide its use among clinicians prior to adoption. This is unlike the rigorous process that medical drugs need to go through from preclinical to clinical phases of development, often with controlled trials being conducted prior to integration of a new drug into clinical practice. In this review, we will identify the problems related to implementation of new technologies and techniques as well as propose solutions. We will outline the use of comparative effectiveness studies as a model for assessing new technologies and provide a structured pathway to support clinicians in their endeavour to introduce new devices or procedures in their clinical practice safely. We will also discuss the role of the British Society of Gastroenterology in risk stratifying new techniques and supporting clinicians in setting up national registries, training and business case development. This review will provide a framework for improving the quality and safety of our current practice of implementing new endoscopic technologies and techniques in the National Health Service.
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.