Racial Disparities in Endoscopy Cancellations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted healthcare delivery including elective endoscopy. We aimed to determine the prevalence of endoscopy cancellations in the COVID-19 era and identify patient characteristics associated with cancellation due to the pandemic. METHODS: Medical charts were reviewed for adults who cancelled an outpatient endoscopic procedure from 5/2020 to 8/2020. The association of patient characteristics with cancellation of endoscopy due to COVID-19 was assessed using logistic regression. RESULTS: There were 652 endoscopy cancelations with 211 (32%) due to COVID-19, 384 (59%) due to non-COVID reasons, and 57 (9%) undetermined. Among COVID-19 related cancellations, 75 (36%) were COVID-19 testing logistics related, 121 (57%) were COVID-19 fear related, and 15 (7%) were other. On adjusted analysis, the odds of cancellation due to COVID-19 was significantly higher for black patients (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.07-3.88, p = 0.03), while patients undergoing EGD (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31-0.99, p = 0.05) or advanced endoscopy (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.07-0.49, p = 0.001) had lower odds of cancellation. The odds of cancelling due to COVID-19 testing logistics was significantly higher among black patients (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.03-9.46, p = 0.05) and patients with Medi-Cal insurance (OR 2.89, 95% CI 1.21-6.89, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Black race is associated with an increased risk of COVID-19 related cancellation. Specifically, black patients and those with Medi-Cal are at increased risk of cancellation related to logistics of obtaining pre-endoscopy COVID-19 testing. Racial and socioeconomic disparities in access to endoscopy may be further amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic and warrant further study.

Analysis of the Publication Rate of the Abstracts Presented at a National Gastroenterology Meeting after 6 Years.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Abstract presentations at scientific meetings provide an opportunity to communicate the results of important research. Unfortunately, many abstracts are not published as full manuscripts. At the 73rd scientific meeting of the American College of Gastroenterology in 2008, we evaluated factors associated with the publication of abstracts as manuscripts up to 6.5 years after presentation. METHODS: All abstracts, excluding case reports, presented at the meeting were evaluated. We systematically searched for matching manuscripts indexed in PubMed or EMBASE up to May 2015. We used logistic regression models to determine factors associated with manuscript publication and calculated ORs and 95% CIs. RESULTS: Of the included 791 abstracts, 249 (31.5%) were published as manuscripts within 6.5 years. Oral presentation (OR 2.11; 95% CI 1.15-3.87), multicenter studies (OR 2.67; 95% CI 1.44-4.95), abstracts by University-based authors (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.20-2.72), and funded research (OR 2.15; 95% CI 1.43-3.23) were more likely to be published. Winning an award at the meeting was not associated with manuscript publication (OR 1.09; 95% CI 0.57-2.06). CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need to enhance the methods of disseminating scientific knowledge through publication of abstracts presented at gastroenterology meetings as manuscripts. Mentors should endeavor to encourage their mentees to complete this final stage of their scholarly activities.