BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Standardization of the endoscopic report is a key issue for future research in the field of digestive endoscopy. The Minimal Standard Terminology (MST) has been proposed by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) as a structured language for production of computerized endoscopic reports. The aim of this study was to validate version 1.0 of this terminology prospectively, by collecting cases in a multicenter, multilingual trial. METHODS: Endoscopic cases (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD], colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]) were prospectively collected in nine university hospitals in Europe, using the same software. Reports were produced in the local language, but the software allowed comparison of reports between languages, and global analysis of the database. Outcome measures were the adequacy of terms proposed in the MST to describe "reasons for performing an endoscopy", "findings", and "endoscopic diagnoses", frequency of use and content of free-text fields, and types of lesions described. RESULTS: A total of 6,232 reports were analyzed, including 3,447 gastroscopies, 1,743 colonoscopies, and 1,042 ERCPs. Overall, terms originally contained in the MST were adequate to describe fully 91.0% of all examinations where "reasons for endoscopy" were described, 99.5 % of examinations where "findings" were described, 95.8% of all examinations containing descriptions of "endoscopic diagnosis", 98.9% of examinations containing descriptions of "additional diagnostic procedures", and 94.8 % of examinations containing descriptions of "additional therapeutic procedures". Free-text fields were only used in the other cases (less than 5% of cases in average). CONCLUSIONS: The MST appeared adequate to cover a large part of routine endoscopy reports, and could thus be used as a tool for standardization of endoscopic reports in clinical practice. The latter could be significantly improved by the use of a structured and standardized terminology for the production of endoscopic reports.
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Standardization of the endoscopic report is a key issue for future research in the field of digestive endoscopy. The Minimal Standard Terminology (MST) has been proposed by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) as a structured language for production of computerized endoscopic reports. The aim of this study was to validate version 1.0 of this terminology prospectively, by collecting cases in a multicenter, multilingual trial. METHODS: Endoscopic cases (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD], colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]) were prospectively collected in nine university hospitals in Europe, using the same software. Reports were produced in the local language, but the software allowed comparison of reports between languages, and global analysis of the database. Outcome measures were the adequacy of terms proposed in the MST to describe "reasons for performing an endoscopy", "findings", and "endoscopic diagnoses", frequency of use and content of free-text fields, and types of lesions described. RESULTS: A total of 6,232 reports were analyzed, including 3,447 gastroscopies, 1,743 colonoscopies, and 1,042 ERCPs. Overall, terms originally contained in the MST were adequate to describe fully 91.0% of all examinations where "reasons for endoscopy" were described, 99.5 % of examinations where "findings" were described, 95.8% of all examinations containing descriptions of "endoscopic diagnosis", 98.9% of examinations containing descriptions of "additional diagnostic procedures", and 94.8 % of examinations containing descriptions of "additional therapeutic procedures". Free-text fields were only used in the other cases (less than 5% of cases in average). CONCLUSIONS: The MST appeared adequate to cover a large part of routine endoscopy reports, and could thus be used as a tool for standardization of endoscopic reports in clinical practice. The latter could be significantly improved by the use of a structured and standardized terminology for the production of endoscopic reports.
Authors: Michael Bretthauer; Lars Aabakken; Evelien Dekker; Michal F Kaminski; Thomas Rösch; Rolf Hultcrantz; Stepan Suchanek; Rodrigo Jover; Ernst J Kuipers; Raf Bisschops; Cristiano Spada; Roland Valori; Dirk Domagk; Colin Rees; Matthew D Rutter Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2016-02-03 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Romain Leenhardt; Anthony Buisson; Arnaud Bourreille; Philippe Marteau; Anastasios Koulaouzidis; Cynthia Li; Martin Keuchel; Emmanuele Rondonotti; Ervin Toth; John N Plevris; Rami Eliakim; Bruno Rosa; Konstantinos Triantafyllou; Luca Elli; Gabriele Wurm Johansson; Simon Panter; Pierre Ellul; Enrique Pérez-Cuadrado Robles; Deirdre McNamara; Hanneke Beaumont; Cristiano Spada; Flaminia Cavallaro; Franck Cholet; Ignacio Fernandez-Urien Sainz; Uri Kopylov; Mark E McAlindon; Artur Németh; Gian Eugenio Tontini; Diana E Yung; Yaron Niv; Gabriel Rahmi; Jean-Christophe Saurin; Xavier Dray Journal: United European Gastroenterol J Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.623
Authors: Marcel J M Groenen; Willem Hirs; Henk Becker; Ernst J Kuipers; Gerard P Van Berge Henegouwen; Paul Fockens; Rob J Th Ouwendijk Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2007-02-16 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Konstantinos Triantafyllou; Athanasios D Sioulas; Theodora Kalli; Nikolaos Misailidis; Dimitrios Polymeros; Ioannis S Papanikolaou; George Karamanolis; Spiros D Ladas Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 2.260
Authors: Suqing Li; Marc Monachese; Misbah Salim; Naveen Arya; Anand V Sahai; Nauzer Forbes; Christopher Teshima; Mohammad Yaghoobi; Yen-I Chen; Eric Lam; Paul James Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.628