Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: a systematic review
Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review
Standard
Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy : a systematic review. / Cold, Kristoffer Mazanti; Vamadevan, Anishan; Vilmann, Andreas Slot; Svendsen, Morten Bo Søndergaard; Konge, Lars; Bjerrum, Flemming.
In: Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, Vol. 100, No. 2, 2024, p. 167-176.e1.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Author
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy
T2 - a systematic review
AU - Cold, Kristoffer Mazanti
AU - Vamadevan, Anishan
AU - Vilmann, Andreas Slot
AU - Svendsen, Morten Bo Søndergaard
AU - Konge, Lars
AU - Bjerrum, Flemming
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background and Aims: Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. In this review we identified and described different CAQ systems for colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus based on 3 blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: colonoscopy, competence assessment, and automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by 2 reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results: Of 12,575 identified studies, 6831 remained after removal of duplicates and 6806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving 25 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: withdrawal speedometer (7 studies), endoscope movement analysis (3 studies), effective withdrawal time (1 study), fold examination quality (1 study), and visual gaze pattern (1 study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and 2 studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI, 15.2 points; maximum, 18 points). Conclusions: Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to the ADR. Only 5 studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible because of the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.
AB - Background and Aims: Endoscopists' competence can vary widely, as shown in the variation in the adenoma detection rate (ADR). Computer-aided quality assessment (CAQ) can automatically assess performance during individual procedures. In this review we identified and described different CAQ systems for colonoscopy. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was done using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus based on 3 blocks of terms according to the inclusion criteria: colonoscopy, competence assessment, and automatic evaluation. Articles were systematically reviewed by 2 reviewers, first by abstract and then in full text. The methodological quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results: Of 12,575 identified studies, 6831 remained after removal of duplicates and 6806 did not pass the eligibility criteria and were excluded, leaving 25 studies, of which 13 studies were included in the final analysis. Five categories of CAQ systems were identified: withdrawal speedometer (7 studies), endoscope movement analysis (3 studies), effective withdrawal time (1 study), fold examination quality (1 study), and visual gaze pattern (1 study). The withdrawal speedometer was the only CAQ system that tested its feedback by examining changes in ADR. Three studies observed an improvement in ADR, and 2 studies did not. The methodological quality of the studies was high (mean MERSQI, 15.2 points; maximum, 18 points). Conclusions: Thirteen studies developed or tested CAQ systems, most frequently by correlating it to the ADR. Only 5 studies tested feedback by implementing the CAQ system. A meta-analysis was impossible because of the heterogeneous study designs, and more studies are warranted.
U2 - 10.1016/j.gie.2024.04.004
DO - 10.1016/j.gie.2024.04.004
M3 - Review
C2 - 38580134
AN - SCOPUS:85198561754
VL - 100
SP - 167-176.e1
JO - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
JF - Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
SN - 0016-5107
IS - 2
ER -
ID: 399029745