RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Using two large datasets from Dorset, we previously reported an internally validated multivariable risk model for predicting the risk of GI malignancy in IDA-the IDIOM score. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to validate the IDIOM model using two independent external datasets. METHODS: The external validation datasets were collected, in a secondary care setting, by different investigators from cohorts in Oxford and Sheffield derived under different circumstances, comprising 1117 and 474 patients with confirmed IDA respectively. The data were anonymised prior to analysis. The predictive performance of the original model was evaluated by estimating measures of calibration, discrimination and clinical utility using the validation datasets. RESULTS: The discrimination of the original model using the external validation data was 70% (95% CI 65, 75) for the Oxford dataset and 70% (95% CI 61, 79) for the Sheffield dataset. The analysis of mean, weak, flexible and across the risk groups' calibration showed no tendency for under or over-estimated risks in the combined validation data. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the clinical value of the IDIOM model with a net benefit that is higher than 'investigate all' and 'investigate no-one' strategies up to a threshold of 18% in the combined validation data, using a risk cut-off of around 1.2% to categorise patients into the very low risk group showed that none of the patients stratified in this risk group proved to have GI cancer on investigation in the validation datasets. CONCLUSION: This external validation exercise has shown promising results for the IDIOM model in predicting the risk of underlying GI malignancy in independent IDA datasets collected in different clinical settings.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Improvements in the structure of endoscopy training programmes resulting in certification from the Joint Advisory Group in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have been acknowledged to improve training experience and contribute to enhanced colonoscopy performance. OBJECTIVES: The 2016 British Society of Gastroenterology trainees' survey of endoscopy training explored the delivery of endoscopy training - access to lists; level of supervision and trainee's progression through diagnostic, core therapy and subspecialty training. In addition, the barriers to endoscopy training progress and utility of training tools were examined. METHODS: A web-based survey (Survey Monkey) was sent to all higher specialty gastroenterology trainees. RESULTS: There were some improvements in relation to earlier surveys; 85% of trainees were satisfied with the level of supervision of their training. But there were ongoing problems; 12.5% of trainees had no access to a regular training list, and 53% of final year trainees had yet to achieve full certification in colonoscopy. 9% of final year trainees did not feel confident in endoscopic management of upper GI bleeds. CONCLUSIONS: The survey findings provide a challenge to those agencies tasked with supporting endoscopy training in the UK. Acknowledging the findings of the survey, the paper provides a strategic response with reference to increased service pressures, reduced overall training time in specialty training programmes and the requirement to support general medical and surgical on-call commitments. It describes the steps required to improve training on the ground: delivering additional training tools and learning resources, and introducing certification standards for therapeutic modalities in parallel with goals for improving the quality of endoscopy in the UK.