Literature DB >> 25257129

Assessment of colonoscopy by use of magnetic endoscopic imaging: design and validation of an automated tool.

Nikolaj Nerup1, Louise Preisler2, Morten Bo Søndergaard Svendsen3, Lars Bo Svendsen2, Lars Konge3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Yield and safety of colonoscopy are highly dependent on operator competence. Existing tools for assessing competence is time-consuming and based on direct observation, making them prone for bias. There is a need for an easily accessible, reliable, and valid measure of endoscopic performance.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to develop and explore the validity of an automated, unbiased assessment tool.
DESIGN: We tested 10 experienced endoscopists and 11 trainees in colonoscopy on a physical simulator (Kagaku Colonoscope Training Model). Participants were tested with an easy and a difficult case.
SETTING: Center for Clinical Education, Capital Region of Denmark. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: By using magnetic endoscopic imaging, we developed a colonoscopy progression score (CoPS). A pass/fail score was established by using the contrast-group method.
RESULTS: We found significant differences in performance between the 2 groups using the CoPS in both case scenarios (easy: P < .001, difficult: P < .01). LIMITATIONS: Small sample sizes. The heterogeneity of the experienced group resulted in a high passing score for the difficult case, which led to the failing of the less experienced in the group. The CoPS does not consider polyp detection rate, tissue damage, or patient discomfort.
CONCLUSIONS: We developed a score of progression in colonoscopy, based on magnetic endoscopic imaging. With the same tool, a map of progression in colonoscopy can be provided. The CoPS and map of progression in colonoscopy could, with further development, be a valuable tool in colonoscopy training, providing live feedback and aid in unbiased certification.
Copyright © 2015 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25257129     DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc        ISSN: 0016-5107            Impact factor:   9.427


  9 in total

1.  Objective assessment of colonoscope manipulation skills in colonoscopy training.

Authors:  Matthew S Holden; Chang Nancy Wang; Kyle MacNeil; Ben Church; Lawrence Hookey; Gabor Fichtinger; Tamas Ungi
Journal:  Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg       Date:  2017-10-30       Impact factor: 2.924

2.  Accuracy of polyp localization at colonoscopy.

Authors:  Sam A O'Connor; David G Hewett; Marcus O Watson; Bradley J Kendall; Luke F Hourigan; Gerald Holtmann
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-05-19

3.  The efficacy of training insertion skill on a physical model colonoscopy simulator.

Authors:  Annaliese M Plooy; Andrew Hill; Mark S Horswill; Alanna St G Cresp; Rozemary Karamatic; Stephan Riek; Guy M Wallis; Robin Burgess-Limerick; David G Hewett; Marcus O Watson
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-09-30

4.  Automatic and unbiased assessment of competence in colonoscopy: exploring validity of the Colonoscopy Progression Score (CoPS).

Authors:  Louise Preisler; Morten Bo Søndergaard Svendsen; Bo Søndergaard; Lene Brink; Tyge Nordentoft; Lars Bo Svendsen; Lars Konge
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-11-17

5.  A novel physical colonoscopy simulator based on analysis of data from computed tomography colonography.

Authors:  Katsuhisa Noda; Takatoshi Kitada; Yasumoto Suzuki; Hugh Shunsuke Colvin; Taishi Hata; Tsunekazu Mizushima
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2017-05-03       Impact factor: 2.549

6.  Difference in real-time magnetic image analysis of colonic looping patterns between males and females undergoing diagnostic colonoscopy.

Authors:  Jacob Lam; James Wilkinson; Cecilia Brassett; Jonathan Brown
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2018-05-08

7.  Using computerized assessment in simulated colonoscopy: a validation study.

Authors:  Andreas Slot Vilmann; Christian Lachenmeier; Morten Bo Søndergaard Svendsen; Bo Søndergaard; Yoon Soo Park; Lars Bo Svendsen; Lars Konge
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2020-05-25

8.  Contrasting groups' standard setting for consequences analysis in validity studies: reporting considerations.

Authors:  Morten Jørgensen; Lars Konge; Yousif Subhi
Journal:  Adv Simul (Lond)       Date:  2018-03-09

9.  Detecting Task Difficulty of Learners in Colonoscopy: Evidence from Eye-Tracking.

Authors:  Liu Xin; Zheng Bin; Duan Xiaoqin; He Wenjing; Li Yuandong; Zhao Jinyu; Zhao Chen; Wang Lin
Journal:  J Eye Mov Res       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 0.957

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.