ArticleThe Indian journal of medical research2025
Development & validation of a format for reporting endoscopic colonic biopsies.
Article in The Indian journal of medical research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & objectives Non-neoplastic diseases make a considerable part of daily workload of gastroenterologist and an endoscopist. As there are only a few endoscopic findings in literature to suggest a large era of colonic diseases, endoscopic biopsy is a must, to reach a definitive diagnosis. This needs a checklist or a similar format that contains all the important histological features to be seen in a colonic biopsy which is currently lacking in published literature. Hence, this study aimed to develop a format for reporting endoscopic colonic biopsies a first of a kind as per our knowledge particularly for non-neoplastic colonic diseases using modified kappa statistics. Methods Seventy one questions were included in this format after searching in various search engines using various phrases. These questions were reviewed by experts and changes were done accordingly. The finalized questionnaire was further shared with 20 subject matter experts. Their feedback was utilized to determine the Content Validity Index (CVI), calculated at both the item level (I-CVI) and the overall scale level (S-CVI), along with the modified kappa coefficient. For studies involving more than six experts, an I-CVI of 0.78 and an S-CVI/average of 0.9 were considered acceptable benchmarks. Results Fourteen out of 20 experts responded. Mean I-CVI for relevance across all items was 0.933, S-CVI/Average (based on proportion data) across all experts was 0.94 and Mean I-CVI was well above 0.78 (0.928). Interpretation & conclusions The scores indicated a strong agreement among experts on various histological features to be seen in an endoscopic colonic biopsy. These findings clearly indicates that the format met the content validity criteria and hence histological sections of endoscopic colonic biopsies can be read using this format.
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.