ADWE-01 The prediction of diminutive/small polyp histology using didactic vs computer based training in gastroenterology trainees
IntroductionExperts are able to predict and differentiate between neoplastic and non-neoplastic colonic polyps with high accuracy and meet the PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) thresholds. However, this has not been replicated in non-experts and cannot be curre...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Gut 2018-06, Vol.67 (Suppl 1), p.A4 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | IntroductionExperts are able to predict and differentiate between neoplastic and non-neoplastic colonic polyps with high accuracy and meet the PIVI (Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations) thresholds. However, this has not been replicated in non-experts and cannot be currently recommended in clinical practice. The aim of this randomised trial was to establish the optimum method of training to increase the diagnostic accuracy of diminutive/small colonic polyp histological prediction by trainee gastroenterologists.MethodsGastroenterology trainees from the Midlands, UK, reviewed 78 videos (48 i-Scan-OE+30 NBI) of diminutive/small polyps. Participants were randomised to computer-based learning or didactic training. The 78 videos (randomised order) were re-assessed. The NICE (NBI International Colorectal Endoscopic) classification and SIMPLE (Simplified Identification Method for Polyp Labelling during Endoscopy) classification systems were used to classify diminutive/small polyps (figure 1).Abstract ADWE-01 Figure 1Results16 trainees (12 gastroenterology trainees and 4 naïve endoscopists) were randomised to receive either self-training (n=8) or didactic training (n=8). A higher proportion of high confidence predictions of polyps were made by the self-training group vs didactic group when using the SIMPLE classification 77.1% vs. 69.9% (p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0017-5749 1468-3288 |
DOI: | 10.1136/gutjnl-2018-BSGAbstracts.9 |