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.

Ergonomic wellness for the trainee in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Endoscopy-related injuries (ERIs) are prevalent in gastrointestinal endoscopy. The aim of this review is to address the growing concern of ERIs by evaluating the ergonomic risk factors and the efficacy of interventions and educational strategies aimed at mitigating these risks, including novel approaches. RECENT FINDINGS: ERIs are highly prevalent, exacerbated by factors such as repetitive strain, nonneutral postures, suboptimal equipment design, and the procedural learning curve. Female sex and smaller hand sizes have been identified as specific risk factors. Recent guidelines underscore the importance of ergonomic education and the integration of ergonomic principles into the foundational training of gastroenterology fellows. Advances in equipment design focus on adaptability to different hand sizes and ergonomic positions. Furthermore, the incorporation of microbreaks and macrobreaks, along with neutral monitor and bed positioning, has shown promise in reducing the incidence of ERIs. Wearable sensors may be helpful in monitoring and promoting ergonomic practices among trainees. SUMMARY: Ergonomic wellness is paramount for gastroenterology trainees to prevent ERIs and ensure a sustainable career. Effective strategies include ergonomic education integrated into curricula, equipment design improvements, and procedural adaptations such as scheduled breaks and optimal positioning. Sensor-based and camera-based systems may allow for education and feedback to be provided regarding ergonomics to trainees in the future.

Establishment of standards for the referral of large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps: an international expert consensus using a modified Delphi process.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Resection of colorectal polyps has been shown to decrease the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Large nonpedunculated colorectal polyps are often referred to expert centers for endoscopic resection, which requires relevant information to be conveyed to the therapeutic endoscopist to allow for triage and planning of resection technique. The primary objective of this study was to establish minimum expected standards for the referral of large non-pedunculated colonic polyps for potential endoscopic resection. METHODS: A Delphi method was used to establish consensus on minimum expected standards for the referral of large colorectal polyps among a panel of international endoscopy experts. The expert panel was recruited through purposive sampling, and 3 rounds of surveys were conducted to achieve consensus. Quantitative and qualitative data were analyzed for each round. RESULTS: A total of 24 international experts from diverse continents participated in the Delphi study, resulting in consensus on 19 statements related to the referral of large colorectal polyps. The identified factors, including patient demographic characteristics, relevant medications, lesion factors, photodocumentation, and the presence of a tattoo, were deemed important for conveying the necessary information to therapeutic endoscopists. The mean scores for the statements, which were scored on a scale of 1 to 10, ranged from 7.04 to 9.29, with high percentages of experts considering most statements as a very high priority. Subgroup analysis according to continent revealed some variations in consensus rates among experts from different regions. CONCLUSIONS: The identified consensus statements can aid in improving the triage and planning of resection techniques for large colorectal polyps, ultimately contributing to the reduction of colorectal cancer incidence and mortality.

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.

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.

Patient and Public Involvement in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Research-A Scoping Review.

Background: Interest in patient and public involvement in research has grown. Medical, health, and social care research has demonstrated several benefits of patient and public engagement, such as empowering user input and reducing attrition rates in clinical trials. To date, no study has reviewed patient engagement in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). We aimed to describe the benefits, challenges, and best practices of patient engagement in IBD research. Methods: We performed a systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane for all clinical IBD research studies in which patients were involved in the research process (1946- 2023). Patient input was considered in: (1) study design, (2) study execution, (3) research dissemination, and/or (4) other domains not specified here. Two authors independently screened and extracted data on type of engaged person(s), format of engagement, author-reported benefits, recommendations, and challenges. For each study, we reported the level of patient engagement and study adherence to standardized reporting guidelines. Results: After screening 9,355 articles, we included 51 for final analysis. IBD patients were most frequently engaged in study design. Patient engagement in IBD research improved recruitment rates and promoted the creation of user-friendly quality-of-life tools. Selection bias and recruitment difficulties were common challenges in the application of patient engagement. Authors recommended continuous patient involvement to address emerging priorities and cognitive interviewing to improve questionnaire clarity. Conclusions: Patient engagement represents an important step in promoting patient-centred care. According to study authors, implementing cognitive interviewing techniques, continuous patient involvement, and standardized reporting guidelines may improve future iterations of engagement in IBD.

Unified Magnifying Endoscopic Classification (UMEC) of Gastrointestinal Lesions: A North American Validation Study.

Background and study aim: Magnifying endoscopy enables the diagnosis of advanced neoplasia throughout the gastrointestinal tract. The unified magnifying endoscopic classification (UMEC) framework unifies optical diagnosis criteria in the esophagus, stomach, and colon, dividing lesions into three categories: non-neoplastic, intramucosal neoplasia, and deep submucosal invasive cancer. This study aims to ascertain the performance of North American endoscopists when using the UMEC. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, five North American endoscopists without prior training in magnifying endoscopy independently diagnosed images of gastrointestinal tract lesions using UMEC. All endoscopists were blinded to endoscopic findings and histopathological diagnosis. Using histopathology as the gold standard, the endoscopists' diagnostic performances using UMEC were evaluated. Results: A total of 299 lesions (77 esophagus, 92 stomach, and 130 colon) were assessed. For esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 65.2% (95%CI: 50.9-77.9) to 87.0% (95%CI: 75.3-94.6), 77.4% (95%CI: 60.9-89.6) to 96.8% (95%CI: 86.8-99.8), and 75.3% to 87.0%, respectively. For gastric adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 94.9% (95%CI: 85.0-99.1) to 100%, 52.9% (95%CI: 39.4-66.2) to 92.2% (95%CI: 82.7-97.5), and 73.3% to 93.3%. For colorectal adenocarcinoma, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy ranged from 76.2% (95%CI: 62.0-87.3) to 83.3% (95%CI: 70.3-92.5), 89.7% (95%CI: 82.1-94.9) to 97.7% (95%CI: 93.1-99.6), and 86.8% to 90.7%. Intraclass correlation coefficients indicated good to excellent reliability. Conclusion: UMEC is a simple classification that may be used to introduce endoscopists to magnifying narrow-band imaging and optical diagnosis, yielding satisfactory diagnostic accuracy.

Interobserver Reliability of the Paris Classification for Superficial Gastrointestinal Tract Neoplasms: A Systematic Review.

Background and study aims: The Paris classification characterizes the morphology of superficial gastrointestinal tract neoplasms. This system has been shown to predict the risk of submucosal invasion in certain subtypes of lesions. There is limited data that assesses its agreement amongst endoscopists. We performed a systematic review to summarize the available literature on the interobserver reliability (IOR) of the Paris classification. Methods: We conducted a search through December 2020 for studies reporting IOR of the Paris classification. Studies were included if they quantitatively evaluated the IOR of the Paris classification with at least five participating endoscopists. Two authors independently screened studies and abstracted data using an a priori-designed data collection form. Evaluation of study quality and risk of bias was performed using an adapted version of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies. Results: Of the 1,541 studies retrieved, 5 were included in the review. All studies were observational cohort studies published between 2014 and 2020. The IOR of the Paris classification was moderate amongst all four studies evaluating colorectal neoplasms (range, κ = 0.42 to κ = 0.54) and substantial in one study that evaluated gastric neoplasms (κw = 0.65). An educational intervention was conducted by three studies with variable methodology and no significant change in IOR. Conclusions: IOR of the Paris classification is moderate for superficial colonic neoplasms. Further study is needed to determine the reliability of this system for superficial gastric lesions. Standardized training programs are required to investigate the impact of educational intervention on the Paris classification amongst endoscopists.

Global trends in training and credentialing guidelines for gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review.

Background and study aims Credentialing, the process through which an institution assesses and validates an endoscopist's qualifications to independently perform a procedure, can vary by region and country. Little is known about these inter-societal and geographic differences. We aimed to systematically characterize credentialing recommendations and requirements worldwide. Methods We conducted a systematic review of credentialing practices among gastrointestinal and endoscopy societies worldwide. An electronic search as well as hand-search of World Endoscopy Organization members' websites was performed for credentialing documents. Abstracts were screened in duplicate and independently. Data were collected on procedures included in each document (e. g. colonoscopy, ERCP) and types of credentialing statements (procedural volume, key performance indicators (KPIs), and competency assessments). The primary objective was to qualitatively describe and compare the available credentialing recommendations and requirements from the included studies. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data when appropriate. Results We screened 653 records and included 20 credentialing documents from 12 societies. Guidelines most commonly included credentialing statements for colonoscopy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD), and ERCP. For colonoscopy, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 150 to 275 and adenoma detection rate (ADR) from 20 % to 30%. For EGD, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 130 to 1000, and duodenal intubation rate of 95 % to 100%. For ERCP, minimum procedural volumes ranged from 100 to 300 with selective duct cannulation success rate of 80 % to 90 %. Guidelines also reported on flexible sigmoidoscopy, capsule endoscopy, and endoscopic ultrasound. Conclusions While some metrics such as ADR were relatively consistent among societies, there was substantial variation among societies with respect to procedural volume and KPI statements.

Video-based interventions to improve self-assessment accuracy among physicians: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Self-assessment of a physician's performance in both procedure and non-procedural activities can be used to identify their deficiencies to allow for appropriate corrective measures. Physicians are inaccurate in their self-assessments, which may compromise opportunities for self- development. To improve this accuracy, video-based interventions of physicians watching their own performance, an experts' performance or both, have been proposed to inform their self-assessment. We conducted a systematic review of the effectiveness of video-based interventions targeting improved self-assessment accuracy among physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors performed a systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, EBM reviews, and Scopus databases from inception to August 23, 2022, using combinations of terms for "self-assessment", "video-recording", and "physician". Eligible studies were empirical investigations assessing the effect of video-based interventions on physicians' self-assessment accuracy with a comparison of self-assessment accuracy pre- and post- video intervention. We defined self-assessment accuracy as a "direct comparison between an external evaluator and self-assessment that was quantified using formal statistical analysis". Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated quality of evidence. A narrative synthesis was conducted, as variable outcomes precluded a meta-analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2,376 papers were initially retrieved. Of these, 22 papers were selected for full-text review; a final 9 studies met inclusion criteria for data extraction. Across studies, 240 participants from 5 specialties were represented. Video-based interventions included self-video review (8/9), benchmark video review (3/9), and/or a combination of both types (1/9). Five out of nine studies reported that participants had inaccurate self-assessment at baseline. After the intervention, 5 of 9 studies found a statistically significant improvement in self-assessment accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, current data suggests video-based interventions can improve self-assessment accuracy. Benchmark video review may enable physicians to improve self-assessment accuracy, especially for those with limited experience performing a particular clinical skill. In contrast, self-video review may be able to provide improvement in self-assessment accuracy for more experience physicians. Future research should use standardized methods of comparison for self-assessment accuracy, such as the Bland-Altman analysis, to facilitate meta-analytic summation.

How to make cost-effective polyp simulators for high-fidelity simulation-based training in postpolypectomy bleeding management and EMR.

Video 1Demonstration of manufacturing instructions and features of the postpolypectomy bleeding and conventional and underwater EMR simulators.

Educational interventions to improve ergonomics in gastrointestinal endoscopy: a systematic review.

Background and study aims Endoscopists are at high risk of musculoskeletal pain and injuries (MSPI). Recently, ergonomics has emerged as an area of interest to reduce and prevent the incidence of MSPI in endoscopy. The aim of this systematic review was to determine educational interventions using ergonomic strategies that target reduction of endoscopist MSPI from gastrointestinal endoscopy. Methods In December 2020, we conducted a systematic search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published from inception to December 16, 2020. Studies were included if they investigated educational interventions aimed at changing knowledge and/or behaviors related to ergonomics in gastrointestinal endoscopy. After screening and full-text review, we extracted data on study design, participants, type of training, and assessment of primary outcomes. We evaluated study quality with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results Of the initial 575 records identified in the search, five met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. We found that most studies (n = 4/5, 80 %) were single-arm interventional studies that were conducted in simulated and/or clinical settings. The most common types of interventions were didactic sessions and/or videos (n = 4/5, 80%). Two (40 %) studies used both standardized assessment studies and formal statistical analyses. The mean MERSQI score was 9.7. Conclusions There is emerging literature demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions to improve ergonomics in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Propensity Score-Matched Studies Evaluating Biologics and Biosimilars for Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

Background: Propensity score matching (PSM), a statistical technique that estimates a treatment effect by accounting for predictor covariates, has been used to evaluate biologics for inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Financial conflicts of interest are prevalent in the marketing of biologic medications. It is unclear whether this burden of conflicts is present among authors of PSM studies comparing IBD biologics and biosimilars. Objective: This study was aimed to determine the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest among authors of PSM studies evaluating IBD biologics and biosimilars. Methods: We conducted a systematic search for PSM studies comparing biologics and biosimilars in IBD treatment. We identified 21 eligible studies. Two independent authors extracted self-declared conflicts from the disclosures section. Each participating author was searched on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments to identify payment amounts and undisclosed conflicts. Primary outcome was the prevalence of author conflicts. Secondary analyses assessed for an association between conflict prevalence and reporting of positive outcomes. Results: Among 283 authors, conflicts were present among 41.0% (116 of 283). Twenty-three per cent (27 of 116) of author conflicts involved undisclosed payments. Studies with positive outcomes were significantly more likely to include conflicted authors than neutral studies (relative risk = 2.34, 95% confidence interval: 1.71 to 3.21, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Overall, we found a high burden of undisclosed conflicts among authors of PSM studies comparing IBD biologics and biosimilars. Given the importance of PSM studies as a means for biologic comparison and the potential for undue industry influence from these payments, authors should ensure greater transparency with reporting of industry relationships.

Interventions to improve the quality of screening-related colonoscopy: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Colonoscopy quality can vary depending on endoscopist-related factors. Quality indicators, such as adenoma detection rate (ADR), have been adopted to reduce variations in care. Several interventions aim to improve ADR, but these fall into several domains that have traditionally been difficult to compare. We will conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluating the efficacies of interventions to improve colonoscopy quality and report our findings according to clinically relevant interventional domains. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus and Evidence-Based Medicine from inception to September 2022. Four reviewers will screen for eligibility and abstract data in parallel, with two accordant entries establishing agreement and with any discrepancies resolved by consensus. The primary outcome will be ADR. Two authors will independently conduct risk of bias assessments. The analyses of the network will be conducted under a Bayesian random-effects model using Markov-chain Monte-Carlo simulation, with 10 000 burn-ins and 100 000 iterations. We will calculate the ORs and corresponding 95% credible intervals of network estimates with a consistency model. We will report the impact of specific interventions within each domain against standard colonoscopy. We will perform a Bayesian random-effects pairwise meta-analysis to assess heterogeneity based on the I2 statistic. We will assess the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework for network meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Our study does not require research ethics approval given the lack of patient-specific data being collected. The results will be disseminated at national and international gastroenterology conferences and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021291814.