A Samad Soudagar1, Gregory S Sayuk, C Prakash Gyawali. 1. Division of Gastroenterology, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 South Euclid Avenue, Campus Box 8124, St Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:High resolution manometry (HRM) provides a colourful representation of oesophageal motility. Novice and intermediate learners were tested to compare HRM Clouse plots and conventional manometry for accuracy, ease of interpretation and knowledge retention. METHODS: 36 learners evaluated 60 randomised motility sequences (30 HRM Clouse plots with corresponding line tracings) 4 months apart, following a tutorial. Learners rated prior knowledge of oesophageal pathophysiology and manometry and scored ease and speed of interpretation on 10 cm visual analogue scales (VAS). RESULTS: Understanding of oesophageal pathophysiology was low in all cohorts (2.9±0.4 on VAS) and knowledge of HRM and conventional motility studies was even lower (1.9±0.4 and 1.8±0.3, respectively, p=NS). After the tutorial, diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher with HRM Clouse plots than with line tracings (p<0.001). HRM gains in diagnostic accuracy were evident over line tracings (43.1%), particularly with aperistalsis (36.1%), oesophageal body hypomotility (25.8%) and relaxation of the lower oesophageal sphincter (21.0%) (p<0.001 for each comparison); these were maintained at the second evaluation. Gains were independent of academic level (F=0.56, p=0.5) and did not correlate with prior experience of learners (r=-0.18, p=0.29). Learners favoured HRM Clouse plots (80.6%) over line tracings and reported faster interpretation (94.4%). CONCLUSIONS:HRM Clouse plots provide ease of interpretation that translates into higher diagnostic accuracy and better knowledge retention in novice and intermediate learners of oesophageal manometry. These results implicate the value of pattern recognition in HRM interpretation, irrespective of academic level and prior understanding of oesophageal motor function.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: High resolution manometry (HRM) provides a colourful representation of oesophageal motility. Novice and intermediate learners were tested to compare HRM Clouse plots and conventional manometry for accuracy, ease of interpretation and knowledge retention. METHODS: 36 learners evaluated 60 randomised motility sequences (30 HRM Clouse plots with corresponding line tracings) 4 months apart, following a tutorial. Learners rated prior knowledge of oesophageal pathophysiology and manometry and scored ease and speed of interpretation on 10 cm visual analogue scales (VAS). RESULTS: Understanding of oesophageal pathophysiology was low in all cohorts (2.9±0.4 on VAS) and knowledge of HRM and conventional motility studies was even lower (1.9±0.4 and 1.8±0.3, respectively, p=NS). After the tutorial, diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher with HRM Clouse plots than with line tracings (p<0.001). HRM gains in diagnostic accuracy were evident over line tracings (43.1%), particularly with aperistalsis (36.1%), oesophageal body hypomotility (25.8%) and relaxation of the lower oesophageal sphincter (21.0%) (p<0.001 for each comparison); these were maintained at the second evaluation. Gains were independent of academic level (F=0.56, p=0.5) and did not correlate with prior experience of learners (r=-0.18, p=0.29). Learners favoured HRM Clouse plots (80.6%) over line tracings and reported faster interpretation (94.4%). CONCLUSIONS: HRM Clouse plots provide ease of interpretation that translates into higher diagnostic accuracy and better knowledge retention in novice and intermediate learners of oesophageal manometry. These results implicate the value of pattern recognition in HRM interpretation, irrespective of academic level and prior understanding of oesophageal motor function.
Authors: Sabine Roman; Zhiyue Lin; Monika A Kwiatek; John E Pandolfino; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-10-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Sudip K Ghosh; Qing Zhang; Andrew Jarosz; Nimeesh Shah; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol Date: 2006-02-02 Impact factor: 4.052
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Sudip K Ghosh; John Rice; John O Clarke; Monika A Kwiatek; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2007-09-26 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: John E Pandolfino; Monika A Kwiatek; Thomas Nealis; William Bulsiewicz; Jennifer Post; Peter J Kahrilas Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2008-07-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Peter J Kahrilas; Albert J Bredenoord; Mark Fox; C Prakash Gyawali; Sabine Roman; André J P M Smout; John E Pandolfino Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-09-27 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: H Monrroy; D Cisternas; C Bilder; A Ditaranto; J Remes-Troche; A Meixueiro; M A Zavala; J Serra; I Marín; A Ruiz de León; J Pérez de la Serna; A Hani; A Leguizamo; L Abrahao; R Coello; M A Valdovinos Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-01-31 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Ishita Dhawan; Brendon O'Connell; Amit Patel; Ron Schey; Henry P Parkman; Frank Friedenberg Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2018-12 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Dustin A Carlson; Karthik Ravi; Peter J Kahrilas; C Prakash Gyawali; Arjan J Bredenoord; Donald O Castell; Stuart J Spechler; Magnus Halland; Navya Kanuri; David A Katzka; Cadman L Leggett; Sabine Roman; Jose B Saenz; Gregory S Sayuk; Alan C Wong; Rena Yadlapati; Jody D Ciolino; Mark R Fox; John E Pandolfino Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Rena Yadlapati; Andrew J Gawron; Rajesh N Keswani; Karl Bilimoria; Donald O Castell; Kerry B Dunbar; Chandra P Gyawali; Blair A Jobe; Philip O Katz; David A Katzka; Brian E Lacy; Benson T Massey; Joel E Richter; Felice Schnoll-Sussman; Stuart J Spechler; Roger Tatum; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 11.382