ArticleBMC gastroenterology2024
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices of endoscopy among gastroenterologists in diagnosis and management of inflammatory bowel disease in China: a multicenter cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of endoscopy among gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and management of IBD in China.
methodsA multicenter cross-sectional KAP study was performed. The questionnaire was developed and improved using feedback and opinions from a team of experienced IBD specialist professors and then distributed and collected online. In addition, eight fellow gastroenterologists participated in an IBD endoscopy training program were asked to review endoscopic images, and the consistency of the endoscopic scores before and after training was calculated.
resultsA total of 193 participants from 12 provincial-level administrative regions encompassing both the Northern and Southern parts of China completed the study questionnaire. The median age of the participants was 40 (36, 45) years, with the majority being female (70.5%). The median professional experience as gastroenterologists was 11 (7, 17) years, while the median experience as endoscopists was 8 (3, 15) years. The median knowledge score was 8 out of 10 points for single-choice questions; however, most gastroenterologists believed that some concepts in these endoscopic indices were vague, including those regarding deep ulcerations, ulcerated surfaces, affected surfaces and narrowing in open-answer questions. The UCEIS and SES-CD were considered most consistent with clinical activity score in the evaluation of UC and CD, respectively. IBD subspecialists and gastroenterologists who had previously received IBD endoscopy screening training were more likely to use endoscopic indices (p<0.001, p = 0.029, respectively). The Rutgeerts score demonstrated the most significant improvement in consistency before and after training, from 0.407 (95% CI: 0.025-0.999) to 0.909 (95% CI: 0.530-1.000).
conclusionsWe propose the elucidation of ambiguous definitions in endoscopic indices, enhancement of training, and the application of innovative technology to enhance the application of endoscopic evaluation and endoscopic indices in clinical practice.
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.