Literature DB >> 9600423

The minimal standard terminology for digestive endoscopy: introduction to structured reporting.

M Delvaux1, L Y Korman, J R Armengol-Miro, M Crespi, O Cass, F Hagenmüller, F M Zwiebel.   

Abstract

The wider use of computers for the management of endoscopic data and the use of electronic endoscopes for the production of high quality endoscopic images has made the standardization of terminology and images formats necessary in digestive endoscopy reports. The European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy and the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy have combined their efforts to propose a Minimal Standard Terminology for Computerized Databases in Endoscopy. This terminology is based on the following principles: no term describing findings less frequent than 1%, of the daily practice, and no term based on subjective impressions. The Minimal Standard Terminology has been developed according to the natural process of constructing an endoscopic report in natural language and deals with the following: reasons for performing the examination, endoscopic findings, endoscopic diagnosis, additional therapeutic and diagnosis procedures (biopsies, etc.). It is subdivided according to the main organs examined with an endoscopy. Until now, the Minimal Standard Terminology was tested in many centers and was shown to accurately cover 95% of routine examinations for the upper gastrointestinal tract, colonoscopy and cholangio-pancreatography. It is currently being tested in an a prospective way in several centers in Europe (with a grant from the European Commission DGXIII-C4) and in the USA (with grant from the AHDHF).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9600423     DOI: 10.1016/s1386-5056(97)00128-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Med Inform        ISSN: 1386-5056            Impact factor:   4.046


  7 in total

1.  Endoscopic electronic record: A new approach for improving management of colorectal cancer prevention.

Authors:  Elham Maserat; Reza Safdari; Elnaz Maserat; Mohamad Reza Zali
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Oncol       Date:  2012-04-15

2.  Validation of colonoscopic findings from a structured endoscopic documentation database against manually collected medical records data.

Authors:  Otto S Lin; Danielle La Selva; Jae-Myung Cha; Michael Gluck; Andrew Ross; Michael Chiorean; Richard A Kozarek
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Source authenticity in the UMLS--a case study of the Minimal Standard Terminology.

Authors:  Gai Elhanan; Kuo-Chuan Huang; Yehoshua Perl
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2010-08-06       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Inter-observer agreement in the assessment of endoscopic findings in ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Thomas de Lange; Stig Larsen; Lars Aabakken
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2004-05-18       Impact factor: 3.067

5.  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

6.  Conformity assessment of Minimal Standard Terminology (MST) in the reports of endoscopy and colonoscopy done by internal specialists and gastroenterologists in Tehran.

Authors:  Shahrokh Iravani; Pedram Azimzadeh
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench       Date:  2011

7.  Can natural language processing help differentiate inflammatory intestinal diseases in China? Models applying random forest and convolutional neural network approaches.

Authors:  Yuanren Tong; Keming Lu; Yingyun Yang; Ji Li; Yucong Lin; Dong Wu; Aiming Yang; Yue Li; Sheng Yu; Jiaming Qian
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2020-09-29       Impact factor: 2.796

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.