↓ Skip to main content

AGA White Paper: Training and Implementation of Endoscopic Image Enhancement Technologies

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
46 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
AGA White Paper: Training and Implementation of Endoscopic Image Enhancement Technologies
Published in
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology, June 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.01.033
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Endoscopic image-enhancement technologies provide opportunities to visualize normal and abnormal tissues within the gastrointestinal (GI) tract in a manner that complements conventional white light endoscopic imaging. The additional information that is obtained enables the endoscopist to better identify, delineate, and characterize lesions and can facilitate targeted biopsies or, in some cases, eliminate the need to send samples for histologic analysis. Some of these technologies have been available for more than a decade, but despite this fact, there is limited use of these technologies by endoscopists. Lack of formalized training in their use and a scarcity of guidelines on implementation of these technologies into clinical practice are contributing factors. In November 2014, the American Gastroenterological Association's Center for GI Innovation and Technology conducted a 2-day workshop to discuss endoscopic image-enhancement technologies. This article represents the third of 3 separate documents generated from the workshop and discusses the published literature pertaining to training and outlines a proposed framework for the implementation of endoscopic image-enhancement technologies in clinical practice. There was general agreement among participants in the workshop on several key considerations. Training and competency assessment for endoscopic image-enhancement technologies should incorporate competency-based education paradigms. To facilitate successful training, multiple different educational models that can cater to variations in learning styles need to be developed, including classroom-style and self-directed programs, in-person and web-based options, image and video atlases, and endoscopic simulator programs. To ensure safe and appropriate use of these technologies over time, refresher courses, skill maintenance programs, and options for competency reassessment should be established. Participants also generally agreed that although early adopters of novel endoscopic image-enhancement modalities can successfully implement these technologies by pursuing training and ensuring self-competency, widespread implementation is likely to require support from GI societies and buy-in from other key stakeholders including payors/purchasers and patients. Continued work by manufacturers and the GI societies in providing training programs and patient education, working with payors and purchasers, and creating environments and policies that motivate endoscopists to adopt new practices is essential in creating widespread implementation.

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 7 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 46 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 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Other 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 4%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 11 June 2017.
All research outputs
#7,301,261
of 26,470,638 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#2,478
of 4,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#104,991
of 335,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology
#37
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,470,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 335,287 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.