Background
High resolution manometry (HRM) provides a colourful representation of oesophageal motility. Novice and intermediate learners were tested to compare HRM Clouse plots and conventional manometry for accuracy, ease of interpretation and knowledge retention.
Methods
36 learners evaluated 60 randomised motility sequences (30 HRM Clouse plots with corresponding line tracings) 4 months apart, following a tutorial. Learners rated prior knowledge of oesophageal pathophysiology and manometry and scored ease and speed of interpretation on 10 cm visual analogue scales (VAS).
Results
Understanding of oesophageal pathophysiology was low in all cohorts (2.9±0.4 on VAS) and knowledge of HRM and conventional motility studies was even lower (1.9±0.4 and 1.8±0.3, respectively, p=NS). After the tutorial, diagnostic accuracy was significantly higher with HRM Clouse plots than with line tracings (p<0.001). HRM gains in diagnostic accuracy were evident over line tracings (43.1%), particularly with aperistalsis (36.1%), oesophageal body hypomotility (25.8%) and relaxation of the lower oesophageal sphincter (21.0%) (p<0.001 for each comparison); these were maintained at the second evaluation. Gains were independent of academic level (F=0.56, p=0.5) and did not correlate with prior experience of learners (r=−0.18, p=0.29). Learners favoured HRM Clouse plots (80.6%) over line tracings and reported faster interpretation (94.4%).
Conclusions
HRM Clouse plots provide ease of interpretation that translates into higher diagnostic accuracy and better knowledge retention in novice and intermediate learners of oesophageal manometry. These results implicate the value of pattern recognition in HRM interpretation, irrespective of academic level and prior understanding of oesophageal motor function.
Approximately two-thirds of gastroenterologists are willing to adopt the "predict, resect, and discard" strategy for managing diminutive colon polyps. Medical-legal concerns and lack of financial incentives are the primary barriers to implementation.
Introduction: The American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE) has published a Preservation and Incorporation of Valuable Endoscopic Innovations (PIVI) statement on incorporating an imaging-guided surveillance protocol to replace the current practice of four-quadrant biopsies every two centimeters for Barrett’s esophagus (BE) surveillance. We sought to determine if current gastroenterologists would be willing to apply these changes to their practice and identify any barriers to implementation.
Methods: We collected data using surveys that were distributed at two national meetings and using a random selection process emailed surveys to members listed in the American Gastroenterological Association directory. Physicians from a variety of practice settings participated. Primary outcomes of our study included determining whether clinicians would be willing to accept an imaging-based surveillance protocol, their reasons for not doing so, and whether a financial incentive would be persuade them to implement the protocol. Continuous variables were reported as mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables were summarized with percentages and 95 % confidence intervals.
Results: Gastroenterologists (172) completed the survey; and 140 (81.4 %) of them stated they would implemented the PIVI recommendations into practice. Using a multivariate analysis of the data, physicians who reported a financial incentive for submitting biopsy specimens to pathology were less likely to implement the PIVI recommendations. The two main barriers to implementation of the protocol were medical-legal and financial reasons. Of the 32 gastroenterologists who were not willing to implement the imaging-guided surveillance protocol, 20 (62.5 %) stated that they would implement it if there were a financial incentive.
Discussion: The PIVI statement focuses on re-evaluating our current method of surveillance for BE. The results of our survey show that gastroenterologists may be willing to implement an imaging-guided surveillance program, but concerns regarding financial compensation and proper training in advanced imaging techniques remain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.