Relative Efficacies of Interventions to Improve the Quality of Screening-Related Colonoscopy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Significant variability exists in colonoscopy quality indicators, including adenoma detection rate (ADR). We synthesized evidence from randomized trials in a network meta-analysis on interventions to improve colonoscopy quality. METHODS: We included trials from database inceptions to September 25, 2023, of patients undergoing screening-related colonoscopy and presented efficacies of interventions within domains (periprocedural parameters, endoscopist-directed interventions, intraprocedural techniques, endoscopic technologies, distal attachment devices, and additive substances) compared to standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was ADR. We used a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte Carlo simulation, with 10,000 burn-ins and 100,000 iterations. We calculated odds ratios with 95% credible intervals and present surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curves. RESULTS: We included 124 trials evaluating 37 interventions for the primary outcome. Nine interventions resulted in statistically significant improvements in ADR compared to standard colonoscopy (9-minute withdrawal time, dual observation, water exchange, i-SCAN [Pentax Ltd], linked color imaging, computer-aided detection, Endocuff [Olympus Corp], Endocuff Vision [Olympus Corp], and oral methylene blue). Dual observation (SUCRA, 0.84) and water exchange (SUCRA, 0.78) ranked highest among intraprocedural techniques; i-SCAN (SUCRA, 0.95), linked color imaging (SUCRA, 0.85), and computer-aided detection (SUCRA, 0.78) among endoscopic technologies; WingCap (A&A Medical Supply LLC) (SUCRA, 0.87) and Endocuff (SUCRA, 0.85) among distal attachment devices and oral methylene blue (SUCRA, 0.94) among additive substances. No interventions improved detection of advanced adenomas, and only narrow-band imaging improved detection of serrated lesions (odds ratio, 2.94; 95% credible interval, 1.46-6.25). CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions are effective in improving adenoma detection and overall colonoscopy quality, many of which are cost-free. These results can inform endoscopists, unit managers, and endoscopy societies on relative efficacies.

Accuracy of self-assessment in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assessment is necessary to ensure both attainment and maintenance of competency in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, and this can be accomplished through self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to evaluate the accuracy of self-assessment among GI endoscopists. METHODS: This was an individual participant data meta-analysis of studies that investigated self-assessment of endoscopic competency. We performed a systematic search of the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Wiley Cochrane CENTRAL, and ProQuest Education Resources Information Center. We included studies if they were primary investigations of self-assessment accuracy in GI endoscopy that used statistical analyses to determine accuracy. We conducted a meta-analysis of studies using a limits of agreement (LoA) approach to meta-analysis of Bland-Altman studies. RESULTS: After removing duplicate entries, we screened 7138 records. After full-text review, we included 16 studies for qualitative analysis and three for meta-analysis. In the meta-analysis, we found that the LoA were wide (-41.0 % to 34.0 %) and beyond the clinically acceptable difference. Subgroup analyses found that both novice and intermediate endoscopists had wide LoA (-45.0 % to 35.1 % and -54.7 % to 46.5 %, respectively) and expert endoscopists had narrow LoA (-14.2 % to 21.4 %). CONCLUSIONS: GI endoscopists are inaccurate in self-assessment of their endoscopic competency. Subgroup analyses demonstrated that novice and intermediate endoscopists were inaccurate, while expert endoscopists have accurate self-assessment. While we advise against the sole use of self-assessment among novice and intermediate endoscopists, expert endoscopists may wish to integrate it into their practice.

Validity evidence for observational ERCP competency assessment tools: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of competence in endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is critical for supporting learning and documenting attainment of skill. Validity evidence supporting ERCP observational assessment tools has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS : We conducted a systematic search using electronic databases and hand-searching from inception until August 2021 for studies evaluating observational assessment tools of ERCP performance. We used a unified validity framework to characterize validity evidence from five sources: content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences. Each domain was assigned a score of 0-3 (maximum score 15). We assessed educational utility and methodological quality using the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument, respectively. RESULTS : From 2769 records, we included 17 studies evaluating 7 assessment tools. Five tools were studied for clinical ERCP, one for simulated ERCP, and one for simulated and clinical ERCP. Validity evidence scores ranged from 2 to 12. The Bethesda ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (BESAT), ERCP Direct Observation of Procedural Skills Tool (ERCP DOPS), and The Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) and ERCP Skills Assessment Tool (TEESAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 10, 12, and 11, respectively. Regarding educational utility, most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal additional resources. Overall methodological quality (maximum score 13.5) was strong, with scores ranging from 10 to 12.5. CONCLUSIONS : The BESAT, ERCP DOPS, and TEESAT had strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Integrating tools into training may help drive learners' development and support competency decision making.

The Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND : Assessment of mucosal visualization during esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) can be improved with a standardized scoring system. To address this need, we created the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS). METHODS : We developed the TUGCS using Delphi methodology, whereby an international group of endoscopy experts iteratively rated their agreement with proposed TUGCS items and anchors on a 5-point Likert scale. After each Delphi round, we analyzed responses and refined the TUGCS using an 80 % agreement threshold for consensus. We used the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to assess inter-rater and test-retest reliability. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach's alpha and item-total and inter-item correlations with Pearson's correlation coefficient. We compared TUGCS ratings with an independent endoscopist's global rating of mucosal visualization using Spearman's ρ. RESULTS : We achieved consensus with 14 invited participants after three Delphi rounds. Inter-rater reliability was high at 0.79 (95 %CI 0.64-0.88). Test-retest reliability was excellent at 0.83 (95 %CI 0.77-0.87). Cronbach's α was 0.81, item-total correlation range was 0.52-0.70, and inter-item correlation range was 0.38-0.74. There was a positive correlation between TUGCS ratings and a global rating of visualization (r = 0.41, P = 0.002). TUGCS ratings for EGDs with global ratings of excellent were significantly higher than those for EGDs with global ratings of fair (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION : The TUGCS had strong evidence of validity in the clinical setting. The international group of assessors, broad variety of EGD indications, and minimal assessor training improves the potential for dissemination.

Outcomes for upper gastrointestinal bleeding during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the Toronto area.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Changes to endoscopy service availability during the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected management of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). The aim of this study was to describe the impact of the pandemic on UGIB outcomes in the Toronto area in Canada. METHODS: We described all adults admitted to general medicine wards or intensive care units at six hospitals in Toronto and Mississauga, Canada, with UGIB during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 1 to June 30, 2020) and compared them with a historical cohort (March 1 to June 30, 2018 and 2019). We compared clinical outcomes (in-hospital mortality, length of stay, 30-day readmission, intensive care utilization, receipt of endoscopy, persistent bleeding, receipt of second endoscopy, and need for angiographic or surgical intervention) using multivariable regression models, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and severity of clinical presentation. RESULTS: There were 82.5 and 215.5 admissions per month for UGIB during the COVID-19 and control periods, respectively. There were no baseline differences between groups for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, or severity of bleeding. Patients in the COVID-19 group did not have significantly different unadjusted (3.9% vs 4.2%, P = 0.983) or adjusted mortality (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.25-1.48, P = 0.322). Patients in COVID-19 group were less likely to receive endoscopy for UGIB in the unadjusted (61.8% vs 71.0%, P = 0.003) and adjusted (adjusted OR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.49-0.84, P < 0.01) models. There were no differences between groups for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While patients admitted for UGIB during the first wave of the pandemic were less likely to receive endoscopy, this had no impact on mortality or any secondary outcomes.

Colonoscopy competence assessment tools: a systematic review of validity evidence.

BACKGROUND: Assessment tools are essential for endoscopy training, being required to support feedback provision, optimize learner capabilities, and document competence. We aimed to evaluate the strength of validity evidence that supports the available colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools using the unified framework of validity. METHODS: We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating colonoscopy direct observation assessment tools from inception until 8 April 2020. We extracted data outlining validity evidence (content, response process, internal structure, relations to other variables, and consequences) from the five sources and graded the degree of evidence, with a maximum score of 15. We assessed educational utility using an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework and methodological quality using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument (MERSQI). RESULTS: From 10 841 records, we identified 27 studies representing 13 assessment tools (10 adult, 2 pediatric, 1 both). All tools assessed technical skills, while 10 each assessed cognitive and integrative skills. Validity evidence scores ranged from 1-15. The Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool, the Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS) tool, and the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT) had the strongest validity evidence, with scores of 13, 15, and 14, respectively. Most tools were easy to use and interpret, and required minimal resources. MERSQI scores ranged from 9.5-11.5 (maximum score 14.5). CONCLUSIONS: The ACE, DOPS, and GiECAT have strong validity evidence compared with other assessments. Future studies should identify barriers to widespread implementation and report on the use of these tools in credentialing examinations.

Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines published by 5 GI societies between 2014 and 2017. For each author we identified payments using the disclosure section of CPGs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence, monetary value, and type of declared and undeclared payments among authors. Payments were assessed for the calendar year of and before publication. RESULTS: Thirty-seven CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 569 author entries (91 unique individuals; 66.43% men, 92.6% physicians, 66.4% academically affiliated). Four hundred fifty-one episodes (79%) involved FCOIs, 451 (79%) had undisclosed FCOIs in the CMS-OP, and 445 (77%) had FCOIs relevant to a CPG recommendation. The median undisclosed payment value was $4807.26 (interquartile range, $334.84-$20,579.75). Male authors (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.39) and academically affiliated authors (odds ratio, 8.87; 95% confidence interval, 5.57-14.13) were significantly more likely to have undeclared payments (P < .001). No CPGs met all National Academy of Medicine criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing concerns about the accuracy of the CMS-OP, there are substantial discrepancies between industry-reported payments and author self-disclosure. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to these authors. Given the potential impact of these discrepancies and undisclosed payments on CPGs, more accurate reporting and alternative strategies for managing FCOI are needed.

Impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum on work-related musculoskeletal injury risk in colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopists are at risk of developing musculoskeletal injuries (MSIs), and few receive training on ergonomics. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of a simulation-based ergonomics training curriculum (ETC) on work-related MSI risk during clinical colonoscopy. METHODS: Novice endoscopists underwent a simulation-based ETC and were compared with an historical control group who received simulation-based training without ergonomics training. The ETC included a didactic lecture and video on ergonomics in colonoscopy, feedback from supervisors on ergonomics, and an ergonomics checklist to augment feedback and promote self-reflection. Participants were assessed using the rapid entire body assessment (REBA) and rapid upper limb assessment (RULA). The primary outcome was participants' REBA scores during 2 clinical colonoscopies 4 to 6 weeks after training. RESULTS: In clinical colonoscopy, the ETC group had superior REBA scores (clinical procedure 1: median score, 6 vs 11; P < .001; clinical procedure 2: median score, 6 vs 10; P < .001). In a simulated colonoscopy, the ETC group did not have significantly different REBA or RULA scores between baseline, immediately after training, and 4 to 6 weeks after (REBA: median scores of 5, 5, and 5, respectively; P > .05; RULA: median scores of 6, 6, and 6, respectively; P > .05). The control group had worsening REBA and RULA scores during the study timeline (REBA: median scores of 5 at baseline, 9 immediately after training, and 9 at 4-6 weeks after training; P < .001; RULA: median scores of 6, 7, and 7, respectively; P = .04) during simulated procedures. CONCLUSIONS: A simulation-based ETC is associated with reduced risk of MSI during endoscopy. Although the REBA score was improved, the intervention group was still within the medium-risk range.

Associations between endoscopist feedback and improvements in colonoscopy quality indicators: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy quality indicators such as adenoma detection rate (ADR) are surrogates for the effectiveness of screening-related colonoscopy. It is unclear whether endoscopist feedback on these indicators improves performance. We performed a meta-analysis to determine whether associations exist between endoscopist feedback and colonoscopy performance. METHODS: We conducted a search through May 2019 for studies reporting on endoscopist feedback and associations with ADR or other colonoscopy quality indicators. Pooled rate ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences were calculated using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed to assess for potential methodological or clinical factors associated with outcomes. RESULTS: From 1326 initial studies, 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis for ADR, representing 33,184 colonoscopies. Endoscopist feedback was associated with an improvement in ADR (RR, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.34). Low performers derived a greater benefit from feedback (RR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.18-2.23) compared with moderate performers (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.11-1.29), whereas high performers did not derive a significant benefit (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.99-1.13). Feedback was not associated with increases in withdrawal time (weighted mean difference, +0.43 minutes; 95% CI, -0.50 to +1.36 minutes) or improvements in cecal intubation rate (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01). CONCLUSION: Endoscopist feedback is associated with modest improvements in ADR. The implementation of routine endoscopist audit and feedback should be considered alongside other quality improvement interventions in institutions dedicated to the provision of high-quality screening-related colonoscopy.

Non-technical skills curriculum incorporating simulation-based training improves performance in colonoscopy among novice endoscopists: Randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-technical skills (NTS), involving cognitive, social and interpersonal skills that complement technical skills, are important for the completion of safe and efficient procedures. We investigated the impact of a simulation-based curriculum with dedicated NTS training on novice endoscopists' performance of clinical colonoscopies. METHODS: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a single center. Novice endoscopists were randomized to a control curriculum or a NTS curriculum. The control curriculum involved a didactic session, virtual reality (VR) simulator colonoscopy training, and integrated scenario practice using a VR simulator, a standardized patient, and endoscopy nurse. Feedback and training were provided by experienced endoscopists. The NTS curriculum group received similar training that included a small-group session on NTS, feedback targeting NTS, and access to a self-reflective NTS checklist. The primary outcome was performance during two clinical colonoscopies, assessed using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG DOPS) tool. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants completed the study. The NTS group (n = 21) had superior clinical performance during their first (P < 0.001) and second clinical colonoscopies (P < .0.001), compared to the control group (n = 18). The NTS group performed significantly better on the VR simulator (P < 0.05) and in the integrated scenario (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Our findings demonstrate that dedicated NTS training led to improved performance of clinical colonoscopies among novices.

Virtual reality simulation training in endoscopy: a Cochrane review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopy programs are increasingly integrating simulation training. We conducted a systematic review to determine whether virtual reality (VR) simulation training can supplement and/or replace conventional patient-based endoscopy training for health professional trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. METHODS: We searched medical, educational, and computer literature databases in July 2017 for trials that compared VR simulation training with no training, conventional training, another form of simulation training, or an alternative method of VR training. We screened, abstracted data, and performed quantitative analysis and quality assessment through Cochrane methodology. RESULTS: We included 18 trials with 3817 endoscopic procedures. VR training provided no advantage over no training or conventional training based on the primary outcome of composite score of competency. VR training was advantageous over no training based on independent procedure completion (relative risk [RR] = 1.62, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.15 - 2.26, moderate-quality evidence), overall rating of performance (mean difference [MD] 0.45, 95 %CI 0.15 - 0.75, very low-quality evidence), and mucosal visualization (MD 0.60, 95 %CI 0.20 - 1.00, very low-quality evidence). Compared with conventional training, VR training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR = 0.45, 95 %CI 0.27 - 0.74, low-quality evidence). We found no differences between VR training and no training or conventional training for other outcomes. Based on qualitative analysis, we found no significant differences between VR training and other forms of simulation training. VR curricula based in educational theory provided benefit with respect to composite score of competency, compared with unstructured curricula. CONCLUSIONS : VR simulation training is advantageous over no training and can supplement conventional endoscopy training. There is insufficient evidence that simulation training provides benefit over conventional training.

Can Pediatric Endoscopists Accurately Assess Their Clinical Competency? A Comparison Across Skill Levels.

BACKGROUND: Assessment is critical to support pediatric endoscopy training. Although trainee engagement in assessment is encouraged, the use of self-assessment and its accuracy among pediatric endoscopists is not well described. We aimed to determine the self-assessment accuracy of novice, intermediate, and experienced pediatric endoscopists. METHODS: Novice (performed <50 previous colonoscopies), intermediate (50-500), and experienced (>1000) pediatric endoscopists from 3 North American academic teaching hospitals each performed a clinical colonoscopy. Endoscopists were assessed in real-time by 2 experienced endoscopists using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool for Pediatric Colonoscopy (GiECATKIDS). In addition, participants self-assessed their performance using the same instrument. Self-assessment accuracy between the externally assessed and self-assessed scores was evaluated using absolute difference scores, intraclass correlation coefficients, and Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Forty-seven endoscopists participated (21 novices, 16 intermediates, and 10 experienced). Overall, there was moderate agreement of externally assessed and self-assessed GiECATKIDS total scores with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.83). The absolute difference scores among the 3 groups were significantly different (P = 0.005), with experienced endoscopists demonstrating a more accurate self-assessment compared to novices (P = 0.003). Bland-Altman plots revealed that novice endoscopists' self-assessed scores tended to be higher than their externally assessed scores, indicating they overestimated their performance. CONCLUSIONS: We found that endoscopic experience was positively associated with self-assessment accuracy among pediatric endoscopists. Novices were inaccurate in assessing their endoscopic competence and were prone to overestimation of their performances. Our findings suggest novices may benefit from targeted interventions aimed at improving their insight and self-awareness.

Clinical, endoscopic, and histologic characteristics of lymphocytic esophagitis: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Lymphocytic esophagitis (LyE) is a novel, yet poorly described, clinicopathologic entity. The aim of this systematic review was to characterize the demographic, clinical, endoscopic, and histologic features of LyE in observational studies of adult and pediatric patients. DESIGN: We searched the Embase, MEDLINE, and SCOPUS databases for relevant studies in 2018. Two authors reviewed and extracted data from studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: We identified 20 studies for analysis of demographic, clinical, and endoscopic features of LyE. The mean age ranged from 9 to 67 years. When pooled, there were 231 (52.7%) patients with LyE that were female. The most common presenting symptom was dysphagia reported in 191 (48.8%) patients. On endoscopy, most patients with LyE tended to have abnormal findings (69.0%), which included erosive esophagitis, multiple esophageal rings, linear furrows, and narrow-caliber esophagus. In the 31 studies used to assess the histologic definition, the cut-off number of intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) was reported in 16 (51.6%) studies, peripapillary IEL specification in 18 (58.1%) studies, and presence of spongiosis in 6 (19.4%) studies. CONCLUSION: We identified a spectrum of demographic, clinical, and endoscopic findings characteristic of patients with LyE. A consensus on the diagnostic criteria of LyE is required.

A prospective comparison of live and video-based assessments of colonoscopy performance.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colonoscopy performance is typically assessed by a supervisor in the clinical setting. There are limitations of this approach, however, because it allows for rater bias and increases supervisor workload demand during the procedure. Video-based assessment of recorded procedures has been proposed as a complementary means by which to assess colonoscopy performance. This study sought to investigate the reliability, validity, and feasibility of video-based assessments of competence in performing colonoscopy compared with live assessment. METHODS: Novice (<50 previous colonoscopies), intermediate (50-500), and experienced (>1000) endoscopists from 5 hospitals participated. Two views of each colonoscopy were videotaped: an endoscopic (intraluminal) view and a recording of the endoscopist's hand movements. Recorded procedures were independently assessed by 2 blinded experts using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT), a validated procedure-specific assessment tool comprising a global rating scale (GRS) and checklist (CL). Live ratings were conducted by a non-blinded expert endoscopist. Outcomes included agreement between live and blinded video-based ratings of clinical colonoscopies, intra-rater reliability, inter-rater reliability and discriminative validity of video-based assessments, and perceived ease of assessment. RESULTS: Forty endoscopists participated (20 novices, 10 intermediates, and 10 experienced). There was good agreement between the live and video-based ratings (total, intra-class correlation [ICC] = 0.847; GRS, ICC = 0.868; CL, ICC = 0.749). Intra-rater reliability was excellent (total, ICC = 0.99; GRS, ICC = 0.99; CL, ICC = 0.98). Inter-rater reliability between the 2 blinded video-based raters was high (total, ICC = 0.91; GRS, ICC = 0.918; CL, ICC = 0.862). GiECAT total, GRS, and CL scores differed significantly among novice, intermediate, and experienced endoscopists (P < .001). Video-based assessments were perceived as "fairly easy," although live assessments were rated as significantly easier (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Video-based assessments of colonoscopy procedures using the GiECAT have strong evidence of reliability and validity. In addition, assessments using videos were feasible, although live assessments were easier.

Impact of experience on self-assessment accuracy of clinical colonoscopy competence.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Self-assessment is important for life-long learning and a recommended assessment method for endoscopy skills. Prior literature has not investigated self-assessment accuracy of colonoscopic competence in the clinical setting. This study aimed to determine the self-assessment accuracy of novice, intermediate, and experienced endoscopists. METHODS: Novice (performed <50 previous colonoscopies), intermediate (50-500), and experienced (>1000) endoscopists from 5 hospitals each performed a clinical colonoscopy. Video recordings of procedures were independently assessed by 2 blinded expert endoscopists by using the Gastrointestinal Endoscopy Competency Assessment Tool (GiECAT). Externally assessed and self-assessed GiECAT scores were defined as the mean of the 2 video-based ratings and as participants' own assigned ratings, respectively. Self-assessment accuracy between the externally assessed and self-assessed scores was evaluated by using absolute difference scores, intraclass correlation coefficients, and the Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: Twenty novice, 10 intermediate, and 10 experienced endoscopists participated. There was moderate agreement of externally assessed and self-assessed GiECAT scores, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.65 (95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.80). The absolute difference scores among the 3 groups were significantly different (P = .002), with experienced endoscopists demonstrating a more accurate self-assessment ability compared with novices (P = .002). Bland-Altman plots suggest that novice and experienced endoscopists tend to overrate and underrate their clinical competence, respectively; no specific trends were associated with intermediates. CONCLUSION: Participants demonstrated moderate self-assessment accuracy of clinical competence. Endoscopist experience was positively associated with self-assessment accuracy; novices demonstrated lower self-assessment accuracy compared with experienced endoscopists. Moreover, novices tended to overestimate their performances. Novice endoscopists may benefit from targeted interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy.

Virtual reality simulation training for health professions trainees in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopy has traditionally been taught with novices practicing on real patients under the supervision of experienced endoscopists. Recently, the growing awareness of the need for patient safety has brought simulation training to the forefront. Simulation training can provide trainees with the chance to practice their skills in a learner-centred, risk-free environment. It is important to ensure that skills gained through simulation positively transfer to the clinical environment. This updated review was performed to evaluate the effectiveness of virtual reality (VR) simulation training in gastrointestinal endoscopy. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether virtual reality simulation training can supplement and/or replace early conventional endoscopy training (apprenticeship model) in diagnostic oesophagogastroduodenoscopy, colonoscopy, and/or sigmoidoscopy for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following health professions, educational, and computer databases until 12 July 2017: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL, AMED, ERIC, Education Full Text, CBCA Education, ACM Digital Library, IEEE Xplore, Abstracts in New Technology and Engineering, Computer and Information Systems Abstracts, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. We also searched the grey literature until November 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised clinical trials comparing VR endoscopy simulation training versus any other method of endoscopy training with outcomes measured on humans in the clinical setting, including conventional patient-based training, training using another form of endoscopy simulation, or no training. We also included trials comparing two different methods of VR training. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed the eligibility and methodological quality of trials, and extracted data on the trial characteristics and outcomes. We pooled data for meta-analysis where participant groups were similar, studies assessed the same intervention and comparator, and had similar definitions of outcome measures. We calculated risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated mean difference (MD) and standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes when studies reported the same or different outcome measures, respectively. We used GRADE to rate the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 trials (421 participants; 3817 endoscopic procedures). We judged three trials as at low risk of bias. Ten trials compared VR training with no training, five trials with conventional endoscopy training, one trial with another form of endoscopy simulation training, and two trials compared two different methods of VR training. Due to substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity across our four comparisons, we did not perform a meta-analysis for several outcomes. We rated the quality of evidence as moderate, low, or very low due to risk of bias, imprecision, and heterogeneity.Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus no training: There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect on composite score of competency (MD 3.10, 95% CI -0.16 to 6.36; 1 trial, 24 procedures; low-quality evidence). Composite score of competency was based on 5-point Likert scales assessing seven domains: atraumatic technique, colonoscope advancement, use of instrument controls, flow of procedure, use of assistants, knowledge of specific procedure, and overall performance. Scoring range was from 7 to 35, a higher score representing a higher level of competence. Virtual reality training compared to no training likely provides participants with some benefit, as measured by independent procedure completion (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.15 to 2.26; 6 trials, 815 procedures; moderate-quality evidence). We evaluated overall rating of performance (MD 0.45, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.75; 1 trial, 18 procedures), visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.60, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.00; 1 trial, 55 procedures), performance time (MD -0.20 minutes, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.30; 2 trials, 29 procedures), and patient discomfort (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.35; 2 trials, 145 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. No trials reported procedure-related complications or critical flaws (e.g. bleeding, luminal perforation) (3 trials, 550 procedures; moderate-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus conventional patient-based training: One trial reported composite score of competency but did not provide sufficient data for quantitative analysis. Virtual reality training compared to conventional patient-based training resulted in fewer independent procedure completions (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.74; 2 trials, 174 procedures; low-quality evidence). We evaluated performance time (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.80; 2 trials, 34 procedures), overall rating of performance (MD -0.90, 95% CI -4.40 to 2.60; 1 trial, 16 procedures), and visualisation of mucosa (MD 0.0, 95% CI -6.02 to 6.02; 1 trial, 18 procedures), all with very low-quality evidence. Virtual reality training in combination with conventional training appears to be advantageous over VR training alone. No trials reported any procedure-related complications or critical flaws (3 trials, 72 procedures; very low-quality evidence).Virtual reality endoscopy simulation training versus another form of endoscopy simulation: Based on one study, there were no differences between groups with respect to composite score of competency, performance time, and visualisation of mucosa. Virtual reality training in combination with another form of endoscopy simulation training did not appear to confer any benefit compared to VR training alone.Two methods of virtual reality training: Based on one study, a structured VR simulation-based training curriculum compared to self regulated learning on a VR simulator appears to provide benefit with respect to a composite score evaluating competency. Based on another study, a progressive-learning curriculum that sequentially increases task difficulty provides benefit with respect to a composite score of competency over the structured VR training curriculum. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: VR simulation-based training can be used to supplement early conventional endoscopy training for health professions trainees with limited or no prior endoscopic experience. However, we found insufficient evidence to advise for or against the use of VR simulation-based training as a replacement for early conventional endoscopy training. The quality of the current evidence was low due to inadequate randomisation, allocation concealment, and/or blinding of outcome assessment in several trials. Further trials are needed that are at low risk of bias, utilise outcome measures with strong evidence of validity and reliability, and examine the optimal nature and duration of training.

Progressive learning in endoscopy simulation training improves clinical performance: a blinded randomized trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A structured comprehensive curriculum (SCC) that uses simulation-based training (SBT) can improve clinical colonoscopy performance. This curriculum may be enhanced through the application of progressive learning, a training strategy centered on incrementally challenging learners. We aimed to determine whether a progressive learning-based curriculum (PLC) would lead to superior clinical performance compared with an SCC. METHODS: This was a single-blinded randomized controlled trial conducted at a single academic center. Thirty-seven novice endoscopists were recruited and randomized to either a PLC (n = 18) or to an SCC (n = 19). The PLC comprised 6 hours of SBT, which progressed in complexity and difficulty. The SCC included 6 hours of SBT, with cases of random order of difficulty. Both groups received expert feedback and 4 hours of didactic teaching. Participants were assessed at baseline, immediately after training, and 4 to 6 weeks after training. The primary outcome was participants' performance during their first 2 clinical colonoscopies, as assessed by using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills assessment tool (JAG DOPS). Secondary outcomes were differences in endoscopic knowledge, technical and communication skills, and global performance in the simulated setting. RESULTS: The PLC group outperformed the SCC group during first and second clinical colonoscopies, measured by JAG DOPS (P < .001). Additionally, the PLC group had superior technical and communication skills and global performance in the simulated setting (P < .05). There were no differences between groups in endoscopic knowledge (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate the superiority of a PLC for endoscopic simulation, compared with an SCC. Challenging trainees progressively is a simple, theory-based approach to simulation whereby the performance of clinical colonoscopies can be improved. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT02000180.).

Impact of a simulation training curriculum on technical and nontechnical skills in colonoscopy: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: GI endoscopy simulation-based training augments early clinical performance; however, the optimal manner by which to deliver training is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to validate a simulation-based structured comprehensive curriculum (SCC) designed to teach technical, cognitive, and integrative competencies in colonoscopy. DESIGN: Single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Endoscopic simulation course at an academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Thirty-three novice endoscopists were allocated to an SCC group or self-regulated learning (SRL) group. The SCC group received a curriculum consisting of 6 hours of didactic lectures and 8 hours of virtual reality simulation-based training with expert feedback. The SRL group was provided a list of desired objectives and was instructed to practice on the simulator for an equivalent time (8 hours). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Clinical transfer was assessed during 2 patient colonoscopies using the Joint Advisory Group Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (JAG DOPS) scale. Secondary outcome measures included differences in procedural knowledge, immediate post-training simulation performance, and delayed post-training (4-6 weeks) performance during an integrated scenario test on the JAG DOPS communication and integrated scenario global rating scales. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in baseline or post-training performance on the simulator task. The SCC group performed superiorly during their first and second clinical colonoscopies. Additionally, the SCC group demonstrated significantly better knowledge and colonoscopy-specific performance, communication, and global performance during the integrated scenario. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to measure SRL participants' effort outside of mandatory training. In addition, feedback metrics and number of available simulation cases are limited. CONCLUSIONS: These results support integration of endoscopy simulation into a structured curriculum incorporating instructional feedback and complementary didactic knowledge as a means to augment technical, cognitive, and integrative skills acquisition, as compared with SRL on virtual reality simulators. ( CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01991522.)