Literature DB >> 27739183

Benchmarks for the interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry.

R Yadlapati1, R N Keswani1, K B Dunbar2, A J Gawron3, C P Gyawali4, P J Kahrilas1, P O Katz5,6, D Katzka7, S J Spechler2, R Tatum8, J E Pandolfino1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Competent interpretation of esophageal high-resolution manometry (HRM) is integral to a quality study. Currently, methods to assess physician competency for the interpretation of esophageal HRM do not exist. The aim of this study was to use formal techniques to (i) develop an HRM interpretation exam, and (ii) establish minimum competence benchmarks for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level.
METHODS: A total of 29 physicians from 8 academic centers participated in the study: 9 content experts separated into 2 study groups-expert test-takers (n=7) and judges (n=2), and 20 HRM inexperienced trainees ("trainee test-taker"; n=20). We designed the HRM interpretation exam based on expert consensus. Expert and trainee test-takers (n=27) completed the exam. According to the modified Angoff method, the judges reviewed the test-taker performance and established minimum competency cut scores for HRM interpretation skills. KEY
RESULTS: The HRM interpretation exam consists of 22 HRM cases with 8 HRM interpretation skills per case: identification of pressure inversion point, hiatal hernia >3 cm, integrated relaxation pressure, distal contractile integral, distal latency, peristaltic integrity, pressurization pattern, and diagnosis. Based on the modified Angoff method, minimum cut scores for HRM interpretation skills at the trainee, physician interpreter, and master level ranged from 65-80%, 85-90% (with the exception of peristaltic integrity), and 90-95%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: Using a formal standard setting technique, we established minimum cut scores for eight HRM interpretation skills across interpreter levels. This examination and associated cut scores can be applied in clinical practice to judge competency.
© 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Angoff Method; competency; esophageal manometry; standard setting

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27739183      PMCID: PMC5367956          DOI: 10.1111/nmo.12971

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil        ISSN: 1350-1925            Impact factor:   3.598


  10 in total

1.  Angoff Method of Setting Cut Scores for High-Stakes Testing: Foley Catheter Checkoff as an Exemplar.

Authors:  Suzan Kardong-Edgren; Pamela M Mulcock
Journal:  Nurse Educ       Date:  2016 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.082

2.  The Gastroenterology Core Curriculum, Third Edition.

Authors: 
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 22.682

3.  Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

Authors:  Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2008-09-30       Impact factor: 6.317

Review 4.  Standard setting in medical education.

Authors:  M D Cusimano
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 6.893

5.  Advanced training in neurogastroenterology and gastrointestinal motility.

Authors:  Satish S C Rao; Henry P Parkman
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 22.682

6.  Diagnosis of Esophageal Motility Disorders: Esophageal Pressure Topography vs. Conventional Line Tracing.

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

7.  A System to Assess the Competency for Interpretation of Esophageal Manometry Identifies Variation in Learning Curves.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Rajesh N Keswani; Jody D Ciolino; David P Grande; Zoe I Listernick; Dustin A Carlson; Donald O Castell; Kerry B Dunbar; Andrew J Gawron; C Prakash Gyawali; Philip O Katz; David Katzka; Brian E Lacy; Stuart J Spechler; Roger Tatum; Marcelo F Vela; John E Pandolfino
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-07-27       Impact factor: 11.382

8.  The Chicago Classification of esophageal motility disorders, v3.0.

Authors:  P J Kahrilas; A J Bredenoord; M Fox; C P Gyawali; S Roman; A J P M Smout; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.598

9.  Identification of Quality Measures for Performance of and Interpretation of Data From Esophageal Manometry.

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

Review 10.  Competency based medical education in gastrointestinal motility.

Authors:  R Yadlapati; R N Keswani; J E Pandolfino
Journal:  Neurogastroenterol Motil       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.598

  10 in total
  4 in total

Review 1.  Expert consensus document: Advances in the management of oesophageal motility disorders in the era of high-resolution manometry: a focus on achalasia syndromes.

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

Review 2.  High-resolution esophageal manometry: interpretation in clinical practice.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati
Journal:  Curr Opin Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 3.287

Review 3.  New Developments in Esophageal Motility Testing.

Authors:  Rena Yadlapati; Glenn T Furuta; Paul Menard-Katcher
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol       Date:  2019-03

4.  Esophageal Manometry Competency Program Improves Gastroenterology Fellow Performance in Motility Interpretation.

Authors:  Kelli DeLay; John E Pandolfino; C Prakash Gyawali; Jeanetta Frye; Alexander Kaizer; Paul Menard-Katcher; Joshua A Sloan; Andrew J Gawron; Kathryn Peterson; Dustin A Carlson; Abraham Khan; Rajesh N Keswani; Rena Yadlapati
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2020-09       Impact factor: 12.045

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.