Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Methods for certification in colonoscopy - a systematic review

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Decentralized virtual reality mastoidectomy simulation training: a prospective, mixed-methods study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Simulation-Based Training of Ultrasound-Guided Procedures in Radiology - A Systematic Review

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

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.

Original languageEnglish
JournalScandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume53
Issue number3
Pages (from-to)350-358
ISSN0036-5521
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 23 Jan 2018

    Research areas

  • Journal Article

ID: 52781894