ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2024
Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of the impact of power business intelligence on adenoma detection rate: a prospective observational trial.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality.United European gastroenterology journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Trans.IT database is a national gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy database developed in 2012. It automatically collects anonymous data from GI endoscopy procedures in a centralized database. All endoscopists use a structured reporting tool for uniform data collection. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the database and to evaluate its impact on data registration quality.
methodsWe used all ERCPs, colonoscopies and colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening colonoscopies performed between 2016 and 2020. We excluded centers joining after 2016 and patients below age 18. Data registration quality for ERCPs included completeness of data for: intention of ERCP, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status (virgin or previous sphincterotomy), cannulation (success or failure to cannulate the desired duct) and procedural success. For colonoscopies: indication, ASA-classification, Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), cecal intubation, polyp detection rate (PDR). For CRC-screening colonoscopies, ASA-classification, BBPS, cecal intubation, PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR).
resultsA total of 14,156 ERCPs, 150,962 colonoscopies and 37,199 colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies were included in our analysis. For ERCPs, registration of procedural intention, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status, cannulation and procedural success improved from 34.9%, 32.7%, 72.6%, 36.5%, 34.6%, 27.2% in 2016, to 86.4%, 84.6%, 97.4%, 86.4%, 82.1%, 84.0%, respectively, in 2020. For non-screening colonoscopies, registration of indication, ASA classification, BBPS, cecal intubation and PDR improved from 40.4%, 60.5%, 47.6%, 69.8% and 32.3% in 2016 to 90.3%, 88.9%, 59.8%, 79.1% and 39.1%, respectively, in 2020. For CRC-cancer screening colonoscopy registration equaled outcome, PDR and ADR changed from 74.7% to 63.6% in 2016 to 66.3% and 53.8% in 2020, respectively.
conclusionsThe quality of endoscopy data registration has consistently improved over the years by using the Trans.IT database. This is most likely the result of feedback to performing endoscopists to review performance in real-time online and progressive awareness of quality of data registration.
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.