Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34712462›Full record

ArticleFrontline gastroenterology2021

National census of UK endoscopy services in 2019.

Srivathsan Ravindran, Paul Bassett, Tim Shaw, Michael Dron, Raphael Broughton, Debbie Johnston, Chris J Healey, John Green, Hutan Ashrafian, Ara Darzi and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Frontline gastroenterology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Green endoscopy: A review of strategies for sustainable practice.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Srivathsan RavindranJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1162-9555
Paul BassettStatsconsultancy Ltd, Amersham, UK.
Tim ShawJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Michael DronJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Raphael BroughtonJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Debbie JohnstonJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Chris J HealeyJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
John GreenGastroenterology, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, Cardiff, UK.
Hutan AshrafianSurgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ara DarziSurgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Mark ColemanJoint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK.
Siwan Thomas-GibsonSurgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8922-6249

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe 2017 Joint Advisory Group on Gastrointestinal (GI) Endoscopy (JAG) census highlighted the pressure endoscopy services were under in meeting national targets and the factors behind this. In 2019, JAG conducted a further national census of endoscopy services to understand trends in activity, workforce and waiting time targets.

methodsIn April 2019, the census was sent to all eligible JAG-registered services. Collated data were analysed through various statistical methods. A further comparative dataset was created using available submissions from the 2017 census matched to services in the current census.

resultsThere was a 68% response rate (322/471). There has been a 12%-15% increase in activity across all GI procedures with largest increases in bowel cancer screening. Fewer services are meeting waiting time targets compared with 2017, with endoscopist, nursing and physical capacity cited as the main reasons. Services are striving to improve capacity: 80% of services have an agreed business plan to meet capacity and the number using insourcing has increased from 13% to 20%. The workforce has increased, with endoscopist numbers increasing by 15%, nurses and allied health professionals by 14% and clerical staff by 30%.

conclusionsThe 2019 JAG census is the most recent and extensive survey of UK endoscopy services. There is a clear trend of increasing activity with fewer services able to meet national waiting time targets than 2 years ago. Services have increased their workforce and improved planning to stem the tide but there remains a continued pressure to deliver high quality, safe endoscopy. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, JAG recognises that these pressures will be severely exacerbated and waiting time targets for accreditation will need adjustment and tolerance during the evolution and recovery from the pandemic.

Indexed as

endoscopy

Identifiers

PMID34712462
PMCPMC8515281

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.