↓ Skip to main content

Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Gastroenterology, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Non-physician endoscopists: A systematic review
Published in
World Journal of Gastroenterology, January 2015
DOI 10.3748/wjg.v21.i16.5056
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maximilian Stephens, Luke F Hourigan, Mark Appleyard, George Ostapowicz, Mark Schoeman, Paul V Desmond, Jane M Andrews, Michael Bourke, David Hewitt, David A Margolin, Gerald J Holtmann

Abstract

To examine the available evidence on safety, competency and cost-effectiveness of nursing staff providing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy services. The literature was searched for publications reporting nurse endoscopy using several databases and specific search terms. Studies were screened against eligibility criteria and for relevance. Initial searches yielded 74 eligible and relevant articles; 26 of these studies were primary research articles using original datasets relating to the ability of non-physician endoscopists. These publications included a total of 28883 procedures performed by non-physician endoscopists. The number of publications in the field of non-specialist gastrointestinal endoscopy reached a peak between 1999 and 2001 and has decreased thereafter. 17/26 studies related to flexible sigmoidoscopies, 5 to upper GI endoscopy and 6 to colonoscopy. All studies were from metropolitan centres with nurses working under strict supervision and guidance by specialist gastroenterologists. Geographic distribution of publications showed the majority of research was conducted in the United States (43%), the United Kingdom (39%) and the Netherlands (7%). Most studies conclude that after appropriate training nurse endoscopists safely perform procedures. However, in relation to endoscopic competency, safety or patient satisfaction, all studies had major methodological limitations. Patients were often not randomized (21/26 studies) and not appropriately controlled. In relation to cost-efficiency, nurse endoscopists were less cost-effective per procedure at year 1 when compared to services provided by physicians, due largely to the increased need for subsequent endoscopies, specialist follow-up and primary care consultations. Contrary to general beliefs, endoscopic services provided by nurse endoscopists are not more cost effective compared to standard service models and evidence suggests the opposite. Overall significant shortcomings and biases limit the validity and generalizability of studies that have explored safety and quality of services delivered by non-medical endoscopists.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 84 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 22 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 22%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 10 April 2021.
All research outputs
#5,331,055
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Gastroenterology
#1,411
of 7,561 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,401
of 359,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Gastroenterology
#101
of 659 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,561 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 359,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 659 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.