Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Editor

Personal info

View

About

Terms

Javascript disabled

Please enable Javascript support in your browser to use this application.

Instructions on how to enable JavaScript on different browsers can be found here: http://www.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=23852.

[edit this page]

Lieberman, D.A. et al.

David A. Lieberman, Douglas O. Faigel, Judith R. Logan, Nora Mattek, Jennifer Holub, Glenn Eisen, Cynthia Morris, Robert Smith, Marion Nadel,

Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium.

BACKGROUND: To improve colonoscopy quality, reports must include key quality indicators that can be monitored. OBJECTIVE: To determine the quality of colonoscopy reports in diverse practice settings. SETTING: The consortium of the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, which includes 73 U.S. gastroenterology practice sites that use a structured computerized endoscopy report generator, which includes fields for specific quality indicators. DESIGN: Prospective data collection from 2004 to 2006. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASUREMENTS: Reports were queried to determine if specific quality indicators were recorded. Specific end points, including quality of bowel preparation, cecal intubation rate, and detection of polyp(s) >9 mm in screening examinations were compared for 53 practices with more than 100 colonoscopy procedures per year. RESULTS: Of the 438,521 reports received during the study period, 13.9% did not include bowel-preparation quality and 10.1% did not include comorbidity classification. The overall cecal intubation rate was 96.3%, but cecal landmarks were not recorded in 14% of the reports. Missing polyp descriptors included polyp size (4.9%) and morphology (14.7%). Reporting interventions for adverse events during the procedure varied from 0% to 6.5%. Among average-risk patients who received screening examinations, the detection rate of polyps >9 mm, adjusted for age, sex, and race, was between 4% and 10% in 81% of practices. LIMITATION: Bias toward high rates of reporting because of the standard use of a computerized report generator. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in the quality of colonoscopy reports across diverse practices, despite the use of a computerized report generator. Measurement of quality indicators in clinical practice can identify areas for quality improvement.[1]

References

Assessment of the quality of colonoscopy reports: results from a multicenter consortium. Lieberman, D.A., Faigel, D.O., Logan, J.R., Mattek, N., Holub, J., Eisen, G., Morris, C., Smith, R., Nadel, M. Gastrointest. Endosc. (2009) [Pubmed]

Annotations and hyperlinks in this abstract are from individual authors of WikiGenes or automatically generated by the WikiGenes Data Mining Engine. The abstract is from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.About WikiGenes Open Access Licence Privacy Policy Terms of Use apsburg

The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.