Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37019154›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy2023

High quality colonoscopy: using textbook process as a composite quality measure.

Karlijn J Nass, Sascha C van Doorn, Paul Fockens, Colin J Rees, Maria Pellisé, Manon van der Vlugt, Evelien Dekker

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Karlijn J NassDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Research Institute Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sascha C van DoornDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Flevo Hospital, Almere, The Netherlands.
Paul FockensDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Research Institute Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Colin J ReesPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK.
Maria PelliséGastroenterology Department, Endoscopy Unit, ICMDiM, Hospital Clinic, CIBEREHD, IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9739-4998
Manon van der VlugtDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Research Institute Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Evelien DekkerDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Research Institute Amsterdam Gastroenterology and Metabolism, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4363-0745
Bergman Clinics · NLCentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red · ESNewcastle University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHigh quality colonoscopy is fundamental to good patient outcomes. "Textbook outcome" has proven to be a feasible multidimensional measure for quality assurance between surgical centers. In this study, we sought to establish the "textbook process" (TP) as a new composite measure for the optimal colonoscopy process and assessed how frequently TP was attained in clinical practice and the variation in TP between endoscopists.

methodsTo reach consensus on the definition of TP, international expert endoscopists completed a modified Delphi consensus process. The achievement of TP was then applied to clinical practice. Prospectively collected data in two endoscopy services were retrospectively evaluated. Data on colonoscopies performed for symptoms or surveillance between 1 January 2018 and 1 August 2021 were analyzed.

resultsThe Delphi consensus process was completed by 20 of 27 invited experts (74.1 %). TP was defined as a colonoscopy fulfilling the following items: explicit colonoscopy indication; successful cecal intubation; adequate bowel preparation; adequate withdrawal time; acceptable patient comfort score; provision of post-polypectomy surveillance recommendations in line with guidelines; and the absence of the use of reversal agents, early adverse events, readmission, and mortality. In the two endoscopy services studied, TP was achieved in 5962/8227 colonoscopies (72.5 %). Of 48 endoscopists performing colonoscopy, attainment of TP varied significantly, ranging per endoscopist from 41.0 % to 89.1 %.

conclusionThis study proposes a new composite measure for colonoscopy, namely "textbook process." TP gives a comprehensive summary of performance and demonstrates significant variation between endoscopists, illustrating the potential benefit of TP as a measure in future quality assessment programs.

Indexed as

CecumColonoscopyHumansIntestinesQuality Indicators, Health CareRetrospective Studies

Identifiers

PMID37019154
PMCPMC10465239
OpenAlexW4362637572

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.