ArticleCanadian medical education journal2019
Resident Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (RPAGE): an innovative approach to trainee evaluation and professional development in medicine.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- JAG consensus statements for training and certification in flexible sigmoidoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2023Article
- JAG consensus statements for training and certification in colonoscopy.Frontline gastroenterology · 2023Article
- Quality indicators for colonoscopy: The road forward.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Resident Practice Audit in Gastroenterology (RPAGE) captures assessments of knowledge, professionalism, and technical skills, in real time. This brief report describes this innovative instrument and aspects of its utility.
methodsAssessment data on colonoscopy, endoscopy, and sigmoidoscopy procedures in 2016 were submitted to a repeated measures ANOVA with six within subjects' assessments and one between subjects' factor of year of specialization to evaluate construct validity. The validity hypothesis tested was that more experienced residents would be rated higher than less experienced residents. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha.
resultsThe proportion of completed assessments was relatively low (9 to 22%). Overall reliability was high (α >0.8). There was evidence of validity as global ratings indicated higher competence for senior residents at colonoscopy (1.6) and upper endoscopy (1.4) than for more junior residents (1.9 and 2.1 respectively). These differences were significant for both colonoscopy, (F (1, 282) = 14.8, p <0.001) and endoscopy, F (1, 136) = 56.9, p <0.001.
conclusionThese findings suggest RPAGE is an acceptable electronic log of practice data, but may not be acceptable for workplace based assessment. A key next step will be to evaluate how information collected through RPAGE can help inform resident competency committees.
Identifiers
31388379PMC6681922What 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.