ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2026
Application of a novel adverse event classification scale in a Latin American gastrointestinal endoscopy unit.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate classification of adverse events (AEs) in gastrointestinal endoscopy is essential for safety monitoring and quality improvement. The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) lexicon is widely used, while the classification for AEs in gastrointestinal endoscopy (AGREE) is a recently proposed alternative aiming for broader applicability.
aimTo compare the agreement and correlation between the AGREE and ASGE classification systems using real-world data from a Latin American academic endoscopy unit.
methodsA retrospective analysis of a prospective registry was conducted at a tertiary center in Chile, encompassing all endoscopy-related AEs from 2009 to 2022. Each AE was independently graded using both ASGE and AGREE classification systems by two blinded reviewers per system. Interobserver agreement was calculated using Cohen's Kappa, and inter-scale correlation was assessed using Spearman's rank test.
resultsOf 176655 procedures performed, 235 AEs (0.13%) were included. Most events were related to therapeutic procedures, and the most common AEs were cardiorespiratory (42.1%), bleeding (20.9%), and perforation (17.0%). The ASGE system identified 42.1% of cases as incidents and 57.9% as AEs (Kappa = 0.83). AGREE classified 46.0% as non-AEs and 54.0% as AEs (Kappa = 0.74). A strong correlation between both systems was observed (
conclusionThe AGREE classification strongly correlates with the ASGE lexicon but excludes more cases as non-AEs and shows slightly lower interobserver agreement. These findings support AGREE as a feasible alternative for AE grading in gastrointestinal endoscopy, particularly in diverse clinical environments.
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.