Background and aim: The efficacy of Capsule Endoscopy (CE) depends on the ability of the readers in recognizing and reporting findings. Data about strategies for improving this ability are lacking. We verified if a training session is effective in improving both detection rate and interobserver agreement among CE readers with different experience. Material and methods: 17 readers have been involved in the study. Of them, 6 had previously evaluated less than 50 CE videos, six 50-99 videos and 5 more than 100 videos. All readers reviewed two sets of 15 videos each, reporting small bowel findings (SBF) by means of CEST. These videos were also reviewed by 3 experts (the reference standard-RS); SBF were classified as clinically significant (class A) or not clinically significant (class B). After reviewing all 30 videos, during an 8 hour meeting, the SBF identified by the readers in the first set of 15 videos were collectively discussed and compared with those identified by the RS (training session-TS). After the TS the readers reviewed again the second set of videos. The number of findings identified before and after TS was compared by means of Wilcoxon test; the agreement between each reader and the RS was evaluated by means of k-statistic. Results: In the second set of videos the RS identified 89 SBF. Before the TS each reader identified a mean ±SD of 74±45 SBF; of these a mean of 35±11 matched those identified by the RS. There was no difference among readers with different experience (p=0.9). After the TS both the overall number of SBF per reader (85±47) and the mean number of SBF matching those identified by the RS (38±12) slightly increased, although not significantly (p=.1 and p=.2). This figure remains the same after stratifying readers for expertise or taking into account only class A findings. The agreement with the RS in describing SBF was low and remains closely similar before and after the TS; (k=0.14; 95%CI: 0.12-0.16; k=0.15; 95%CI: 0.12-0.17 respectively). Conclusions: The training strategy tested in this study does not improve the detection rate or the interobserver agreement in describing SBF identif
Bruno, M., Rondonotti, E., Hassan, C., Fuccio, L., Pagano, N., Curcio, G., et al. (2011). WHAT FACTORS AFFECT THE QUALITY OF BOWEL PREPARATION FOR COLONOSCOPY? A MULTICENTER PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY. DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE, 43, S119-S120 [10.1016/S1590-8658(11)60148-5].
WHAT FACTORS AFFECT THE QUALITY OF BOWEL PREPARATION FOR COLONOSCOPY? A MULTICENTER PROSPECTIVE COHORT STUDY
Rondonotti, E;Fuccio, L;Pagano, N;Curcio, G;Fabbri, C;Carrara, S;Maiero, S;
2011
Abstract
Background and aim: The efficacy of Capsule Endoscopy (CE) depends on the ability of the readers in recognizing and reporting findings. Data about strategies for improving this ability are lacking. We verified if a training session is effective in improving both detection rate and interobserver agreement among CE readers with different experience. Material and methods: 17 readers have been involved in the study. Of them, 6 had previously evaluated less than 50 CE videos, six 50-99 videos and 5 more than 100 videos. All readers reviewed two sets of 15 videos each, reporting small bowel findings (SBF) by means of CEST. These videos were also reviewed by 3 experts (the reference standard-RS); SBF were classified as clinically significant (class A) or not clinically significant (class B). After reviewing all 30 videos, during an 8 hour meeting, the SBF identified by the readers in the first set of 15 videos were collectively discussed and compared with those identified by the RS (training session-TS). After the TS the readers reviewed again the second set of videos. The number of findings identified before and after TS was compared by means of Wilcoxon test; the agreement between each reader and the RS was evaluated by means of k-statistic. Results: In the second set of videos the RS identified 89 SBF. Before the TS each reader identified a mean ±SD of 74±45 SBF; of these a mean of 35±11 matched those identified by the RS. There was no difference among readers with different experience (p=0.9). After the TS both the overall number of SBF per reader (85±47) and the mean number of SBF matching those identified by the RS (38±12) slightly increased, although not significantly (p=.1 and p=.2). This figure remains the same after stratifying readers for expertise or taking into account only class A findings. The agreement with the RS in describing SBF was low and remains closely similar before and after the TS; (k=0.14; 95%CI: 0.12-0.16; k=0.15; 95%CI: 0.12-0.17 respectively). Conclusions: The training strategy tested in this study does not improve the detection rate or the interobserver agreement in describing SBF identifI documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
