ArticleSurgical endoscopy2024
Assessment of laparoscopic fundoplication with endoscopy: room for improvement.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionGastroesophageal reflux disease affects a significant portion of the Australian and world population. Minimally invasive laparoscopic fundoplication is a highly effective treatment in appropriately selected patients, with a 90% satisfaction rate. However, up to 5% will undergo revisional surgery. Endoscopy is an important investigation in the evaluation of persistent or new symptoms after fundoplication. Our study sought to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and variability in assessing fundoplication with endoscopy.
methodsUpper gastrointestinal (UGI) surgeons and gastroenterologists were invited to join the cohort study through their professional membership with two societies based in Australia. Participants completed a two part 25-item multiple choice questionnaire, involving the analysis of ten static endoscopic images post-fundoplication.
resultsA total of 101 participants were included in the study (64 UGI surgeons and 37 gastroenterologists). Over 95% of participants were consultant level, working in non-rural tertiary hospitals. Total accuracy for all 10 cases combined was 76% for UGI surgeons and 69.9% for gastroenterologists. In three of the 10 cases, UGI surgeons performed significantly better than gastroenterologists (p < 0.05). When assessing performance across each of the 4 questions for each case, UGI surgeons were more accurate than gastroenterologists in describing the integrity of the wrap (p = 0.014). Inter-rater reliability was low across both groups for most domains (kappa < 1).
conclusionOur study confirms low inter-rater reliability between endoscopists and large variations in reporting. UGI surgeons performed better than gastroenterologists in certain cases, usually when describing the integrity of the fundoplication. Our study provides further support for the use of a standardized reporting system in post-fundoplication patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38036765What 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.