Spring til hovednavigation Spring til søgning Spring til hovedindhold

Computer-aided quality assessment of endoscopist competence during colonoscopy: a systematic review

Kristoffer Mazanti Cold*, Anishan Vamadevan, Andreas Slot Vilmann, Morten Bo Søndergaard Svendsen, Lars Konge, Flemming Bjerrum

*Corresponding author af dette arbejde

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftReviewpeer review

26 Citationer (Scopus)
43 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftGastrointestinal Endoscopy
Vol/bind100
Udgave nummer2
Sider (fra-til)167-176.e1
ISSN0016-5107
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 2024

Bibliografisk note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

Citationsformater