ArticleUnited European gastroenterology journal2025
Consensus on Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Key Performance Indicators to Reduce Post Endoscopy Upper Gastrointestinal Cancer.
Article in United European gastroenterology journal, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUpper gastrointestinal (UGI) endoscopy lacks established key performance indicators. Up to three-fold variation in post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates has been observed among endoscopy providers in England, highlighting the need for standardisation of UGI endoscopy practices.
objectiveWe aimed to achieve consensus on evidence-based key performance indicators to reduce post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.
methodsModified nominal group technique was employed in two consensus workshops, with representation from clinicians, patients and relatives, moderated by James Lind Alliance facilitators. Potential indicators were identified from the umbrella systematic review, English provider post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates, and differences in endoscopy practices from the National Endoscopy Database between providers with the highest (worst) and lowest (best) post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates. KPIs were categorised as provider or endoscopist/procedure related and ranked as of major or minor importance. Minimum standards were proposed where possible.
resultsParticipants included 14 clinicians (gastroenterologists and UGI surgeons), 3 nurse endoscopists, 2 UGI cancer nurse specialists, 14 patients, their relatives and representatives from patient support groups and four observers. Endoscopy provider related major key performance indicators and proposed standards included monitoring post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer rates (minimum standard ≤ 7%); less intense endoscopy lists (maximum 10 'points' per list [one point is equivalent to 15 min]); endoscopy provider accreditation (all providers); and premalignant condition surveillance on dedicated lists by endoscopists with adequate training (> 90% surveillance endoscopies). Endoscopist/procedure related major key performance indicators included: examination time ≥ 7 min; training in early UGI neoplasia recognition (all endoscopists); mucosal view quality recorded and cleansing agents used if not excellent (> 90% endoscopies); intravenous sedation offered to all appropriate patients; recommended number of biopsies from cancer associated or premalignant lesions (> 90% endoscopy where such lesions identified); and endoscopists' annual UGI endoscopy volume > 100 (all endoscopists).
conclusionThis study offers a consensus on the key performance indicators and minimum standards that should be used to improve UGI endoscopy quality and reduce post endoscopy upper gastrointestinal cancer.
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.