ArticleAnnals of gastroenterology2026
Adherence of Greek gastroenterologists to established quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Article in Annals of gastroenterology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Quality assessment is a priority in gastroenterology. Data on adherence to endoscopy quality standards in Greece remain limited. This study examined Greek gastroenterologists' compliance with endoscopic quality indicators. Methods: This survey collected data on the quality of upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy in Greece. Hellenic Society of Gastroenterology members were invited to complete an electronic survey that included validated endoscopic quality indicators. Results: In total, 164 gastroenterologists participated, of whom 107 (65%) were male. Gastroscopy duration was not recorded by 116 (71%), whereas 102 (62%) used photodocumentation. Use of Prague and Los Angeles classifications was high (156/95% and 159/97%). Complications were recorded by 103 (63.58%) after gastroscopy and 90 (55.56%) after colonoscopy. In colonoscopy, 140 (90.85%) used the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale and 158 (96.34%) achieved cecal intubation. An adenoma detection rate >25% was achieved by 117 (71.78%), and 103 (62.8%) used the Paris classification. Overall compliance with upper and lower endoscopy quality indicators was 87 (53%) and 75 (46%), respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that experience (odds ratio [OR] 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1-5.06; P=0.049), video recording (OR 2.55, 95%CI 1.23-5.28; P=0.012), and high-resolution endoscope use (OR 2.92, 95%CI 1.39-6.09; P=0.004) were associated with better compliance during upper endoscopy. For lower endoscopy significant predictors included video recording (OR 2.20, 95%CI 1.11-4.33; P=0.023), age (OR 4.33, 95%CI 1.67-11.24; P=0.003) and high-resolution endoscope use (OR 2.67, 95%CI 1.34-5.3; P=0.005). Conclusion: In this survey, discrepancies were observed in Greek endoscopists' compliance with endoscopic quality indicators, underscoring the need for further improvement.
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.