ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Implementing educational interventions and key performance measures sustains quality of endoscopic assessment in patients with Barrett's esophagus.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Quality metrics for Barrett's esophagus (BE) are anticipated to improve outcomes for patients through earlier detection of neoplasia. The European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy has developed guidelines to homogenize endoscopic quality in BE. Our study aimed to assess the impact of recommended key performance measures (KPMs) and their sustainability. Patients and methods: A single-center, retrospective study (Phase 1) was conducted over 8 weeks. The KPMs assessed were: 1) pre-procedure metrics including indication, consent, safety checklist (target of 100%); and 2) Prague classification, Seattle protocol, or targeted biopsies, inspection time of 1 minute per cm, advanced imaging and surveillance recommendations (target of 90%). Following baseline analysis, multimodal educational interventions were implemented and repeated at 6-month intervals. Repeat analysis was performed at 6 months and 1 and 3 years (Phases 2, 3 and 4 respectively). Results: In Phase 1, 39 patients with BE underwent endoscopy. Phase 2 evaluated 40 patients with BE. Phase 3 analyzed 59 patients with BE, and Phase 4 identified 34 patients with BE. Pre-procedure metrics were met in 100% of patients across the 3-year period. Baseline analysis displayed suboptimal performance at 45% to 75% for all other KPMs. However, after regular multimodal educational interventions, quality standards significantly improved and were able to be maintained over all phases, achieving pre-set targets of >9 0% for all KPMs except one. Conclusions: Sustaining improvements in quality metrics in Barrett's endoscopy is important. Our study suggests that regular, replicable education interventions have a positive effect and allow sustained long-term improvements in quality metrics.
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.