ArticlePloS one2020
Current status and trend in training for endoscopic submucosal dissection: A nationwide survey in Korea.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS).Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Guideline
- The current state of endoscopic submucosal dissection in the UK: a nationwide cross-sectional survey.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Resection speed of endoscopic submucosal dissection according to the location of gastric neoplasia: a learning curve using cumulative sum analysis.Surgical endoscopy · 2023Article
- Endoscopic resection of superficial bowel neoplasia: The unmet needs in the Egyptian practice.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Article
- Endoscopic Submucosal Dissection Skills Transfer to Clinical Practice after Hands-On Workshops: An International Survey.Digestive diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is widely used, the current status and trend in its training have yet to be fully evaluated. We aimed to investigate how ESD endoscopists have been trained in actual clinical practice.
methodsEndoscopists aged <45 years who have completed a gastroenterology fellowship or were currently in a fellowship for ≥2 years were included. We conducted a nationwide survey on the ESD training experiences of these endoscopists.
resultsAmong 79 young Korean endoscopists invited to participate in the survey, 68 (86.1%) trained in 24 major hospitals responded to the questionnaire. Twenty, 25, and 23 participants belonged to the second-year fellow, <5 years after training, and ≥5 years after training groups, respectively. Sixty-nine percent of the participants observed ≥50 ESD cases before starting ESD under supervision by an expert endoscopist. Additionally, 22% experienced ≥20 supervised ESDs during the training period. The proportion of the participants who underwent a hands-on course differed among the groups (≥5 years after training, 13.0%; <5 years after training, 40.0%; and second-year fellow, 50.0%; P = 0.027). ESD under supervision, observation, and hands-on course were the preferred methods for learning ESD (91.1%, 80.9%, and 35.3%, respectively). Overall, 42.6% of the participants were satisfied with their training program. More experience in supervised ESD (≥20 cases) was associated with an increased satisfaction (odds ratio, 6.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.62-36.31).
conclusionsObservation and performance of ESD under the supervision of an expert endoscopist are the primary methods for learning ESD. Hands-on course program has been used more frequently in recent years.
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.