ArticlePrzeglad gastroenterologiczny2026
The impact of personal protective equipment on quality measures of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy.
Article in Przeglad gastroenterologiczny, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is a frequently performed endoscopic procedure that is critical for detecting early neoplastic lesions in the gastrointestinal tract. During the COVID-19 pandemic, operators were forced to use personal protective equipment due to the risk of virus transmission during gastroscopy. Aim: This study aimed to determine the impact of the sanitary regime on the quality indicators of EGD. Material and methods: Data from 12,322 patients who underwent diagnostic EGD between January 2019 and December 2021 performed in three endoscopy units were analysed. The evaluated parameters were as follows: composite detection rate (CDR), endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR), and upper gastrointestinal neoplasm detection (UGN). Results: Of the patients, 6918 were female (56%), with a mean age of 58 years (IQR 24). Compared to the pre-pandemic period, during the pandemic (from 03.2020) there was an increase in UGN (3.1% vs. 4.6%, OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.26-1.86), CDR (26.0% vs. 31.1%, OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.20-1.41), and EBR (66.8% vs. 77.2%, OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.56-1.83). In the multivariate regression analysis, age (OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03), male sex (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.24-1.81), presence of alarm symptoms (OR = 3.93, 95% CI: 3.18-4.86), EGD performed during the COVID-19 pandemic (OR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.24-1.89), and endoscopy performed in the centre K (OR = 3.01, 95% CI: 2.14-4.22) were related with UGN. Conclusions: Despite the use of personal protective equipment, gastroscopy quality indicators and cancer detection rates increased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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.