ArticleSurgical endoscopy2021
Development and validation of an endoscopic submucosal dissection video assessment tool.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review.BMC medical education · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Advanced Endoscopy: Future Training Perspectives and Tracks.Current gastroenterology reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite a need for assessment of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) skills in order to track progress and determine competence, there is no structured measure of assessing competency in ESD performance. The present study aims to develop and examine validity evidence for an assessment tool to evaluate the recorded performance of ESD for gastric neoplasms.
methodsThe ESD video assessment tool (EVAT) was systematically developed by ESD experienced endoscopists. The EVAT consists of a 25-item global rating scale and 3-item checklist to assess competencies required to perform ESD. Five unedited videos were each evaluated by 2-blinded experienced ESD endoscopists to assess inter-rater reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Seventeen unedited videos in total were rated by 3 blinded experienced ESD endoscopists. Validity evidence for relationship to other variables was examined by comparing scores of inexperienced (fellows) and experienced endoscopists (attending staff), and by evaluating the relationship between the EVAT scores and ESD case experience. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha.
resultsThe inter-rater reliability for the total score was high at 0.87 (95% confidence interval 0.11 to 0.99). The total score [median, interquartile range (IQR)] was significantly different between the inexperienced (71, 63-77) and experienced group (95, 91-97) (P = 0.005). The total scores demonstrated high correlation with the number of ESD cases (Spearman's ρ = 0.79, P < 0.01). The internal consistency was 0.97.
conclusionsThis study provides preliminary validity evidence for the assessment of video-recorded ESD performances for gastric neoplasms using EVAT.
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.