Precut sphincterotomy is often performed when bile duct cannulation is difficult; however, the former has a higher risk of complications than conventional methods. Early precut reduces the risk of post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis (PEP). This study aimed to determine the appropriate timing for precut sphincterotomy to minimize the incidence of PEP.

This retrospective study analyzed 320 patients who underwent precut sphincterotomy during their first endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography at a single center. The optimal precut timing was identified using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Patients were divided into an optimized precut group (≤12 min, n = 198) and a delayed group (>12 min, n = 122). The incidence and risk factors of PEP were evaluated using multivariate analyses.

Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified 12.5 min as the optimal cutoff for transitioning to precut sphincterotomy (area under the curve, 0.613; sensitivity, 61.5%; specificity, 63.9%). The incidence of PEP was significantly lower in the optimized precut group than in the delayed precut group (5.1% vs. 13.1%, p = 0.02). Multivariate analysis identified delayed precut timing (odds ratio [OR], 3.134; p = 0.04) and the absence of endoscopic pancreatic stenting (OR, 0.284; p = 0.01) as independent risk factors for PEP.

Precut sphincterotomy within 12.5 min of a cannulation attempt reduces the risk of PEP while maintaining procedural safety. Additionally, endoscopic pancreatic stenting can reduce PEP, even in precut scenarios.

Determining adenoma detection rate (ADR) and serrated polyp detection rate (SDR) can be challenging as they usually involve manual matching of colonoscopy and histology reports. This study aimed to validate a Natural Language Processing (NLP) code that enables rapid and efficient data extraction to calculate ADR and SDR.

A NLP code was developed to automatically extract colonoscopy quality indicators from colonoscopy and histology reports at a tertiary health service. These reports were manually reviewed to verify the concordance of ADR and SDR between the two methods. This process was applied in the initial training phase, repeated following modification of the code, and again with a validation cohort.

Included in the training and test phases were 5911 colonoscopies, with 2022 in the validation phase. The NLP code extracted patient names with 99.9% concordance and had a 98.9% accuracy in ADR and SDR in the training phase. Search terms were subsequently modified to take into consideration spelling variations and overlapping terminologies. Using data from the same cohort, accuracy of the NLP improved to 100%, excluding four colonoscopies that had missing histology reports in the test phase. Using a validated cohort, NLP had a 99.9% accuracy in ADR and SDR. The total time taken for auditing using NLP in the validation phase was less than 1 h.

An automatic NLP code had an accuracy of almost 100% in determining ADR and SDR in a tertiary colonoscopy service. Wider adoption of NLP enables significant improvements in colonoscopy audits that is accurate and time efficient.

Detecting gastric precancerous lesions (GPLs) is critical for the early diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer. Endoscopy combined with tissue examination is an important method for detecting GPLs. However, negative biopsy results often increase patients' risks, economic burdens, and lead to additional healthcare costs. Improving the detection rate of GPLs and reducing the rate of negative biopsies is currently a key focus in endoscopic quality control.

To explore the relationships between the endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR), qualifications of endoscopists and endoscopic assistants, and detection rate of GPLs.

EBR, endoscopists, and endoscopic assistants were divided into four groups: Low, moderate, high, and very high levels. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the relationships between EBR and the qualifications of endoscopists with respect to the detection rate of positive lesions. Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between EBR, endoscopist or endoscopic assistant qualifications, and the detection rate of positive lesions.

Compared with those in the low EBR group, the odds ratio (OR) values for detecting positive lesions in the moderate, high, and very high EBR groups were 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.19, P < 0.001], 1.22 (95%CI: 1.14-1.31, P < 0.001), and 1.38 (95%CI: 1.29-1.47, P < 0.001), respectively. EBR was positively correlated with the detection rate of gastric precancerous conditions (atrophic gastritis/intestinal metaplasia) (ρ = 0.465, P = 0.004). In contrast, the qualifications of the endoscopists were positively correlated with GPLs detection (ρ = 0.448, P = 0.005). Compared to endoscopists with low qualification levels, those with moderate, high, and very high qualification levels endoscopists demonstrated increased detection rates of GPLs by 13% (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.98-1.31), 20% (OR = 1.20, 95%CI: 1.03-1.39), and 32% (OR = 1.32, 95%CI: 1.15-1.52), respectively. Further analysis revealed that the qualifications of endoscopists were positively correlated with the detection rates of GPLs in the cardia (ρ = 0.350, P = 0.034), angularis (ρ = 0.396, P = 0.015) and gastric body (ρ = 0.453, P = 0.005) but not in the antrum (ρ = 0.292, P = 0.079). Moreover, the experience of endoscopic assistants was positively correlated with the detection rate of precancerous lesions by endoscopists with low or moderate qualifications (ρ = 0.427, P = 0.015).

Endoscopists and endoscopic assistants with high/very high qualifications, but not EBR, can improve the detection rate of GPLs. These results provide reliable evidence for the development of gastroscopic quality control indicators.

The European Guidelines for colorectal cancer screening of 2006 state that only high-risk endoscopically resected malignant colorectal polyps (MCPs), defined as poor/no differentiation or positive resection margins or lymphovascular invasion, require colonic resection.

A multicentre series of 954 patients with screen-detected MCP (northern Italy, 2005-2016, age 50-69) was studied to identify (1) the factors affecting the choice of colonic resection, and (2) the factors associated with deviation from the European Guidelines for low- and high-risk patients. Data analysis was based on multilevel logistic regression models.

Five hundred sixty-four (59.1 %) patients underwent colonic resection. The factors significantly associated with surgical referral included: distal and rectal versus proximal tumour site (inverse association); sessile and flat versus pedunculated morphology (direct association); tumour size (direct); moderate/poor versus good differentiation (direct); adenocarcinoma of not otherwise specified type versus adenocarcinoma with a residual adenoma component (direct); positive versus negative resection margins (direct); lymphovascular invasion (direct); and high-grade versus low-grade/absent tumour budding (direct). In low-risk MCPs, tumour budding encouraged strongly the decision for surgery. In high-risk MCPs, a distal/rectal tumour site encouraged the follow-up option.

The identification of factors associated with treatment choices other than those currently recommended may help prioritise the clinical questions in the development of future guidelines.

Training in interventional endoscopy is offered by nonaccredited advanced endoscopy fellowship programs (AEFPs). The number of these programs has increased dramatically with a concurrent increase in the breadth and complexity of interventional endoscopy procedures. Accreditation is governed by competency-based education, yet what constitutes a "high-quality" nonaccredited AEFP has not been defined. Using an evidence-based consensus process, we aimed to establish standards for AEFPs.

The RAND UCLA appropriateness method, a well-described modified Delphi process to develop quality indicators, was used. A task force established by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy drafted potential quality indicators (structure, process, and outcome) in 6 categories: activity preceding training; structure of AEFPs; training in ERCP, EUS, and EMR; and luminal stent placement. Three rounds of iterative feedback from 20 experts were conducted. Round 0 involved discussion of project details. In round 1, experts independently ranked proposed quality indicators on a 9-point interval scale ranging from highly inappropriate (1) to highly appropriate (9). Next, proposed quality indicators were discussed and reworded in a group meeting followed by round 2, in which experts independently reranked proposed quality indicators and provided benchmarks (when applicable). The median score for each quality indicator was calculated. Mean absolute deviation from the median was calculated, and appropriateness of potential quality indicators was assessed using the BIOMED concerted action on appropriateness definition, P value method, and interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry definition. A quality indicator was deemed appropriate if the median score was ≥7 and met criteria for appropriateness using all 3 defined statistical methods.

Of 89 proposed quality indicators, 37 statements met criteria as appropriate for a quality indicator (activity preceding training, 2; structure of AEFPs, 10; training in ERCP, 7; training in EUS, 8; training in EMR, 7; luminal stent placement, 3). Minimum thresholds were defined for 19 relevant quality indicators for number of trainers, procedures during fellowship, and procedures before assessment of competence. Among the final appropriate quality indicators were that all trainees should undergo qualitative and quantitative competence assessments using validated tools at least quarterly with documented feedback throughout the training period and that trainees should track outcomes and relevant quality metrics for specific procedures.

This consensus process using validated methodology established standards for an AEFP in an effort to ensure adequate training in the most commonly taught interventional endoscopic procedures (ERCP, EUS, EMR, and luminal stent placement) during fellowship. An important component of an AEFP is the use of competency-based assessments that are compliant with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education's Next Accreditation System, with the goal of ensuring that trainees achieve specific milestones in their progression to achieving cognitive and technical competency.

The aim was to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAPs) of endoscopy among gastroenterologists in the diagnosis and management of IBD in China.

A multicenter cross-sectional KAP study was performed. The questionnaire was developed and improved using feedback and opinions from a team of experienced IBD specialist professors and then distributed and collected online. In addition, eight fellow gastroenterologists participated in an IBD endoscopy training program were asked to review endoscopic images, and the consistency of the endoscopic scores before and after training was calculated.

A total of 193 participants from 12 provincial-level administrative regions encompassing both the Northern and Southern parts of China completed the study questionnaire. The median age of the participants was 40 (36, 45) years, with the majority being female (70.5%). The median professional experience as gastroenterologists was 11 (7, 17) years, while the median experience as endoscopists was 8 (3, 15) years. The median knowledge score was 8 out of 10 points for single-choice questions; however, most gastroenterologists believed that some concepts in these endoscopic indices were vague, including those regarding deep ulcerations, ulcerated surfaces, affected surfaces and narrowing in open-answer questions. The UCEIS and SES-CD were considered most consistent with clinical activity score in the evaluation of UC and CD, respectively. IBD subspecialists and gastroenterologists who had previously received IBD endoscopy screening training were more likely to use endoscopic indices (p<0.001, p = 0.029, respectively). The Rutgeerts score demonstrated the most significant improvement in consistency before and after training, from 0.407 (95% CI: 0.025-0.999) to 0.909 (95% CI: 0.530-1.000).

We propose the elucidation of ambiguous definitions in endoscopic indices, enhancement of training, and the application of innovative technology to enhance the application of endoscopic evaluation and endoscopic indices in clinical practice.

ERCP is a complex endoscopic procedure in which the center's procedure volume influences outcomes. With the increasing healthcare expenses and limited resources, promoting cost-effective care becomes essential for healthcare provision. This study was a cost-effectiveness analysis to evaluate the hypothesis that high-volume (HV) centers perform ERCP with higher quality at lower costs than low-volume (LV) centers.

A baseline case compared the current distribution of ERCPs among HV and LV centers with a hypothetical scenario in which all ERCPs are performed at HV centers. A cost-effectiveness analysis was constructed, followed by 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis using Monte Carlo simulations.

In the baseline case, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was -$151,270 per year, due to the hypothetical scenario's lower costs and slightly higher quality-adjusted life years. The model was most sensitive to changes in transportation costs (109.34%), probability of significant adverse events (AEs) after successful ERCP at LV centers (42.12%), utility after ERCP with significant AEs (30.10%), and probability of significant AEs after successful ERCP at HV centers (23.53%); only transportation costs above $3655 changed the study outcome, however. The current ERCP distribution would only be cost-effective if LV centers achieved higher success (≥92.4% vs 89.3%), with much lower significant AEs (≤.5% vs 6.7%). The study's main findings remained unchanged while combining all model parameters in the probabilistic sensitivity analysis.

Our findings show that HV centers have high-performance rates at lower costs, raising the need to consider the principle of centralization of ERCPs into HV centers to improve the quality of care.

Accurate and convenient evaluation tools are essential to document endoscopic competence in Gastroenterology training programs. The Direct Observation of Procedural Skills (DOPS), Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES), and Assessment of Endoscopic Competency (ACE) are widely used validated competency assessment tools for gastrointestinal endoscopy. However, studies comparing these 3 tools are lacking, leading to lack of standardization in this assessment. Through simulation, this study seeks to determine the most reliable, comprehensive, and user-friendly tool for standardizing endoscopy competency assessment.

A mixed-methods quantitative-qualitative approach was utilized with sequential deductive design. All nine trainees in a gastroenterology training program were assessed on endoscopic procedural competence using the Simbionix Gi-bronch-mentor high-fidelity simulator, with 2 faculty raters independently completing the 3 assessment forms of DOPS, GAGES, and ACE. Psychometric analysis was used to evaluate the tools' reliability. Additionally, faculty trainers participated in a focused group discussion (FGD) to investigate their experience in using the tools.

For upper GI endoscopy, Cronbach's alpha values for internal consistency were 0.53, 0.8, and 0.87 for ACE, DOPS, and GAGES, respectively. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) scores were 0.79 (0.43-0.92) for ACE, 0.75 (-0.13-0.82) for DOPS, and 0.59 (-0.90-0.84) for GAGES. For colonoscopy, Cronbach's alpha values for internal consistency were 0.53, 0.82, and 0.85 for ACE, DOPS, and GAGES, respectively. IRR scores were 0.72 (0.39-0.96) for ACE, 0.78 (-0.12-0.86) for DOPS, and 0.53 (-0.91-0.78) for GAGES. The FGD yielded three key themes: the ideal tool should be scientifically sound, comprehensive, and user-friendly.

The DOPS tool performed favourably in both the qualitative assessment and psychometric evaluation to be considered the most balanced amongst the three assessment tools. We propose that the DOPS tool be used for endoscopic skill assessment in gastroenterology training programs. However, gastroenterology training programs need to match their learning outcomes with the available assessment tools to determine the most appropriate one in their context.