Forskning
Udskriv Udskriv
Switch language
Region Hovedstaden - en del af Københavns Universitetshospital
Udgivet

Methods for certification in colonoscopy - a systematic review

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. Plasma calprotectin is superior to serum calprotectin as a biomarker of intestinal inflammation in ulcerative Colitis

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Gastric cancer and gastrin: on the interaction of Helicobacter pylori gastritis and acid inhibitory induced hypergastrinemia

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. The clinical course of common bile duct stone clearance with endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreaticography

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  1. The Incidence of Free Peritoneal Tumor Cells before and after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  2. Laparoscopy to Assist Surgical Decisions Related to Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm Neonates

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  3. Simulation-based training for flexible cystoscopy - A randomized trial comparing two approaches

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

  4. Development and validation of a multiple-choice questionnaire-based theoretical test in direct ophthalmoscopy

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Vis graf over relationer

INTRODUCTION: Reliable, valid, and feasible assessment tools are essential to ensure competence in colonoscopy. This study aims to provide an overview of the existing assessment methods and the validity evidence that supports them.

METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in October 2016. Pubmed, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were searched for studies evaluating assessment methods to ensure competency in colonoscopy. Outcome variables were described and evidence of validity was explored using a contemporary framework.

RESULTS: Twenty-five observational studies were included in the systematic review. Most studies were based on small sample sizes. The studies were categorized after outcome measures into five groups: Clinical process related outcome metrics (n = 2), direct observational colonoscopy assessment (n = 8), simulator based metrics (n = 11), automatic computerized metrics (n = 2), and self-assessment (n = 1). Validity score varied among the studies and only five studies presented sufficient evidence to recommend the tool for clinical assessment.

CONCLUSIONS: The objectives vary throughout the presented tools. Some tools are global tools where others focus on procedural technical skill assessment or even part-task skills. There is a tendency in the most recent studies towards more specific assessment of technical skills. The majority of assessment methods lack sufficient validity evidence.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Vol/bind53
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)350-358
ISSN0036-5521
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 23 jan. 2018

ID: 52781894