ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Minimum standards for training in colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection among advanced endoscopy trainees.
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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Data on colorectal endoscopic mucosal resection (C-EMR) training during advanced endoscopy fellowship remain limited. We aimed to determine the number of procedures required by an "average" advanced endoscopy trainee (AET) to achieve competence in cognitive and technical C-EMR skills. Methods: AETs from advanced endoscopy training programs (AETPs) were graded on every C-EMR using a standardized assessment tool. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to generate individual and aggregate learning curves to estimate the minimum number of cases required to achieve competence for overall, technical, and cognitive components of C-EMR. AETs completed a self-assessment questionnaire on C-EMR competence at the end of their training. Results: A total of 22 AETs among 16 AETPs participated in this study. Nineteen AETs (86%) reported formal training in C-EMR with a mean number of 32 ± 22 cases prior to their AETP. In aggregate, 637 C-EMRs were performed (median of 32 per AET; interquartile range 17-45). Learning curve analyses revealed substantial variability in minimum volume of procedures needed to attain competence across different C-EMR skills (range: 19-39). A minimum of 19 cases were required to achieve overall competence using the global assessment score. All AETs reported feeling comfortable performing C-EMR independently at the end of AETP, yet only three (14%) achieved competence in their overall performance. Conclusions: The relatively low number of C-EMRs performed by many AETs may be insufficient to achieve competence. The estimated thresholds for an average AET to achieve competence in C-EMR provide a framework for AETPs in determining the minimal standards for case volume exposure during training.
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.