↓ Skip to main content

The learning curve for interpretation of oesophageal high‐resolution manometry: a prospective interventional cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
17 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.
Article details
Title
The learning curve for interpretation of oesophageal high‐resolution manometry: a prospective interventional cohort study
Published in
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, November 2016
DOI 10.1111/apt.13855
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

High-resolution manometry has become the preferred choice of oesophagologists for oesophageal motor assessment, but the learning curve among trainees remains unclear. To determine the learning curve of high-resolution manometry interpretation. A prospective interventional cohort study was performed on 18 gastroenterology trainees, naïve to high-resolution manometry (median age 32 ± 4.0 years, 44.4% female). An intake questionnaire and a 1-h standardised didactic session were performed at baseline. Multiple 1-h interpretation sessions were then conducted periodically over 15 months where 10 studies were discussed; 5 additional test studies were provided for interpretation, and results were compared to gold standard interpretation by the senior author. Hypothetical management decisions based on trainee interpretation were separately queried. Accuracy was compared across test interpretations and sessions to determine the learning curve, with a goal of 90% accuracy. Baseline accuracy was low for abnormal body motor patterns (53.3%), but higher for achalasia/outflow obstruction (65.9%). Recognition of achalasia reached 90% accuracy after six sessions (P = 0.01), while overall accurate management decisions reached this threshold by the 4th session (P < 0.001). Based on our data, the threshold of 90% accuracy for recognition of any abnormal from normal pattern was reached after 30 studies (3rd session) but fluctuated. Diagnosis of oesophageal body motor patterns remained suboptimal; accuracy of advisability of fundoplication improved, but did not reach 90%. High-resolution manometry has a steep learning curve among trainees. Achalasia recognition is achieved early, but diagnosis of other abnormal motor patterns and management decisions require further supervised training.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 12%
Professor 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Librarian 1 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 6%
Other 4 24%
Unknown 5 29%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 47%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#18,593,672
of 28,038,753 outputs
Outputs from Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#5,551
of 6,596 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,927
of 417,021 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#57
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,038,753 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,596 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.8. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 417,021 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.