Interobserver Agreement Between Experienced Endoscopist and Endoscopy Nurse in the Detection of Lesions in the Capsule Endoscopy Examination

Ponferrada, Ángel; Anton, Susana; González-Asanza, Cecilia; Menchén, Luis; E, Cos; Menchén, Pedro

doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(05)00989-2

Cited by 2 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sixteen studies published from 2003 to 2015 were eventually included for review and meta-analysis. 10,17,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] There were nine full papers, 10,23,25,27,28,30,[33][34][35] together with seven abstracts, 17,24,26,29,31,32,36 with a total of 820 CE examinations involving 20 nurses. Table 1 summarises the included studies.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine of the 16 studies compared the nurses' performance to experienced/expert gastroenterologists (>150 CE). 10,23,24,26,[31][32][33][34]36 Three studies involved a general CE-trained gastroenterologist with moderate CE experience or no experience specified (minimum 50 CE). 29,30,35 Four studies compared nurse performance against a consensus reached following discussion between the nurse and one or more experienced/expert physicians.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Eleven of the 16 studies reported outcomes using the numbers of CE findings reported, 10,17,25,27,28,[30][31][32][33][34][35] with 12 sets of data (two sets of data were obtained from one of the studies, 31 as there were two nurses involved). The meta-analysis results for this outcome are summarised in Table 2.…”

Section: Studies Reporting Outcomes As Numbers Of Ce Findings Detectementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Nine studies presented data relating to 'over-reporting' of CE findings. 10,23,27,28,32,33,35 In these studies, 10 nurses reading 510 CEs had 324 'over-reported' findings (i.e. false positives or findings later deemed insignificant by physicians).…”

Section: Studies Reporting Outcomes As Number Of Ce Videos Where Thermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Systematic review and meta‐analysis of the performance of nurses in small bowel capsule endoscopy reading

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Increasing demands on healthcare systems mean that nurses are taking on more roles as physician extenders. Capsule endoscopy (CE) is a laborious procedure where specialist nurses could reduce physician workload and rationalise resource utilisation. The aim of this review and meta-analysis is to consolidate data on nurses' performance in small bowel CE (SBCE). Materials and methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted for randomised controlled trials and comparative studies on nurses in SBCE reading compared to physicians. We examined the performance of nurses compared to SBCEtrained physicians. Results: Sixteen relevant studies were identified, with 820 SBCE examinations involving 20 nurses. 11/16 studies reported the numbers of SBCE findings detected. Overall, the pooled proportion of all findings reported by physicians and nurses was 86%. Studies involving nurses with endoscopic experience showed a summative detection rate of 89%. 7/16 studies reported the number of videos where there was agreement between the nurse and physicians for overall findings/diagnosis. The overall proportion of videos with agreement was 68%. In studies where nurses had endoscopy experience, the proportion of videos with agreement was 71%. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis supports a more active role for nurses in SBCE reading. We suggest nurses can function as independent CE readers in general, given adequate training and formal credentialing.

show abstract