ArticleMedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources2020
Standardizing Endoscopy Training: A Workshop for Endoscopy Educators.
Article in MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of a novel at-home, scope handle-based game controller on novice endoscopists.iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2026Article
- Advancing colonoscopy training: tailored strategies and simulation-based models for skill mastery.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Review
- Advances and challenges in endoscopy training: A mixed methods study among endoscopy trainers in the Netherlands.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Endoscopy training in the Netherlands: a national survey among gastroenterology residents.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Pediatric endoscopy training across Europe: a survey of the ESPGHAN National Societies Network 2016-2019.Endoscopy international open · 2022Article
- Simulation-based mastery learning in gastrointestinal endoscopy training.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Endoscopy education in the US traditionally follows the apprenticeship model, in which educators often have little formal training in education, and the acquisition of procedural skills by trainees relies heavily on procedure volume and learning by doing. A growing appreciation of the need to formally educate endoscopy trainers has led to the development of mandatory training curricula in other countries, but the implementation of such courses in the US has been limited. This 1-hour workshop aimed to provide educators the rationale and skills to offer a more standardized approach to procedural training. Methods: We implemented a 1-hour interactive workshop designed for both gastroenterology faculty and trainees. The four sections of the workshop focused on: (1) rationale for standardized approach, (2) verbal and physical preparation for training, (3) training using standardized language and avoidance of cognitive overload, and (4) providing feedback. Four interactive video cases followed by large-group discussion were included. Results: A total of 13 gastroenterology faculty and trainees attended the workshop. Eight additional members of the gastroenterology faculty watched an online video of the workshop. Survey data revealed that the workshop was effective in helping faculty set goals with trainees ( Discussion: A 1-hour lecture-based interactive workshop with video cases was an engaging and effective introduction to formal endoscopy education techniques. The format was easy to incorporate into faculty conferences and can help bridge the current gap in formal endoscopy faculty training.
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.