Literature DB >> 24329727

Standardized endoscopic reporting.

Lars Aabakken1, Alan N Barkun, Peter B Cotton, Evgeny Fedorov, Masayuki A Fujino, Ekaterina Ivanova, Shin-Ei Kudo, Konstantin Kuznetzov, Thomas de Lange, Koji Matsuda, Olivier Moine, Björn Rembacken, Jean-Francois Rey, Joseph Romagnuolo, Thomas Rösch, Mandeep Sawhney, Kenshi Yao, Jerome D Waye.   

Abstract

The need for standardized language is increasingly obvious, also within gastrointestinal endoscopy. A systematic approach to the description of endoscopic findings is vital for the development of a universal language, but systematic also means structured, and structure is inherently a challenge when presented as an alternative to the normal spoken word. The efforts leading to the "Minimal Standard Terminology" (MST) of gastrointestinal endoscopy offer a standardized model for description of endoscopic findings. With a combination of lesion descriptors and descriptor attributes, this system gives guidance to appropriate descriptions of lesions and also has a normative effect on endoscopists in training. The endoscopic report includes a number of items not related to findings per se, but to other aspects of the procedure, formal, technical, and medical. While the MST sought to formulate minimal lists for some of these aspects (e.g. indications), they are not all well suited for the inherent structure of the MST, and many are missing. Thus, the present paper offers a recommended standardization also of the administrative, technical, and other "peri-endoscopic" elements of the endoscopic report; important also are the numerous quality assurance initiatives presently emerging. Finally, the image documentation of endoscopic findings is becoming more obvious-and accessible. Thus, recommendations for normal procedures as well as for focal and diffuse pathology are presented. The recommendations are "minimal," meaning that expansions and subcategories will likely be needed in most centers. Still, with a stronger common grounds, communication within endoscopy will still benefit.
© 2013 Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and Wiley Publishing Asia Pty Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  gastrointestinal endoscopy; imaging; quality; standardization; terminology

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24329727     DOI: 10.1111/jgh.12489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gastroenterol Hepatol        ISSN: 0815-9319            Impact factor:   4.029


  10 in total

Review 1.  Does standardised structured reporting contribute to quality in diagnostic pathology? The importance of evidence-based datasets.

Authors:  D W Ellis; J Srigley
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Endoscopic classification of the papilla of Vater. Results of an inter- and intraobserver agreement study.

Authors:  E Haraldsson; L Lundell; F Swahn; L Enochsson; J M Löhr; U Arnelo
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 4.623

Review 3.  Reporting systems in gastrointestinal endoscopy: Requirements and standards facilitating quality improvement: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy position statement.

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

Review 4.  Quality Indicators in Colonoscopy.

Authors:  Kjetil Garborg; Thomas de Lange; Michael Bretthauer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-09

Review 5.  Image Documentation in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: Review of Recommendations.

Authors:  Susana Marques; Miguel Bispo; Pedro Pimentel-Nunes; Cristina Chagas; Mário Dinis-Ribeiro
Journal:  GE Port J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-06-21

6.  Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS).

Authors:  Sabina Beg; Krish Ragunath; Andrew Wyman; Matthew Banks; Nigel Trudgill; D Mark Pritchard; Stuart Riley; John Anderson; Helen Griffiths; Pradeep Bhandari; Phillip Kaye; Andrew Veitch
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2017-08-18       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  A Domain-Specific Terminology for Retinopathy of Prematurity and Its Applications in Clinical Settings.

Authors:  Yinsheng Zhang; Guoming Zhang
Journal:  J Healthc Eng       Date:  2018-04-18       Impact factor: 2.682

8.  Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group.

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

9.  Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study).

Authors:  Pietro Fusaroli; Mohamad Eloubeidi; Claudio Calvanese; Christoph Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Adrian Saftoiu; Claudio De Angelis; Shyam Varadarajulu; Bertrand Napoleon; Andrea Lisotti
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2021-06-21

10.  HyperKvasir, a comprehensive multi-class image and video dataset for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Authors:  Hanna Borgli; Vajira Thambawita; Pia H Smedsrud; Steven Hicks; Debesh Jha; Sigrun L Eskeland; Kristin Ranheim Randel; Konstantin Pogorelov; Mathias Lux; Duc Tien Dang Nguyen; Dag Johansen; Carsten Griwodz; Håkon K Stensland; Enrique Garcia-Ceja; Peter T Schmidt; Hugo L Hammer; Michael A Riegler; Pål Halvorsen; Thomas de Lange
Journal:  Sci Data       Date:  2020-08-28       Impact factor: 6.444

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.