| Title |
Objective Differences in Colonoscopy Technique Between Trainee and Expert Endoscopists Using the Colonoscopy Force Monitor
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Digestive Diseases and Sciences, November 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10620-017-4847-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Alexander R. Ende, Piet De Groen, Bryan L. Balmadrid, Joo Ha Hwang, John Inadomi, Tomasz Wojtera, Vladimir Egorov, Noune Sarvazyan, Louis Korman |
| Abstract |
Learning to perform colonoscopy safely and effectively is central to gastroenterology fellowship programs. The application of force to the colonoscope is an important part of colonoscopy technique. We compared force application during colonoscopy between novice and expert endoscopists using a novel device to determine differences in colonoscopy technique. This is an observational cohort study designed to compare force application during colonoscopy between novice and experienced trainees, made up of gastroenterology fellows from two training programs, and expert endoscopists from both academic and private practice settings. Force recordings were obtained for 257 colonoscopies by 37 endoscopists, 21 of whom were trainees. Experts used higher average forward forces during insertion compared to all trainees and significantly less clockwise torque compared to novice trainees. We present significant, objective differences in colonoscopy technique between novice trainees, experienced trainees, and expert endoscopists. These findings suggest that the colonoscopy force monitor is an objective tool for measuring proficiency in colonoscopy. Furthermore, the device may be used as a teaching tool in training and continued medical education programs. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 10 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Librarian | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 10% |
| Professor | 1 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 10% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 5 | 50% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 6 | 60% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 June 2018.
All research outputs
#19,382,126
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#3,362
of 4,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#328,089
of 437,647 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Digestive Diseases and Sciences
#25
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 437,647 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.