Minimal standard terminology for digestive endoscopy:: Results of prospective testing and validation in the GASTER project

被引:39
作者
Delvaux, M [1 ]
Crespi, M
Armengol-Miro, JR
Hagenmüller, F
Teuffel, W
Spencer, KB
Stettin, J
Zwiebel, FM
机构
[1] CHU Rangueil, Gastroenterol Unit, F-31403 Toulouse 04, France
[2] Ist Regina Elena, I-00161 Rome, Italy
[3] Hosp Gen Valle Hebron, Digest Endoscopy Unit, Barcelona, Spain
[4] Allgemeines Krankenhaus Altona, Hamburg, Germany
[5] Olympus Software Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
[6] Hosp La Charite, Berlin, Germany
[7] Olympus Europe GmbH, Hamburg, Germany
关键词
D O I
10.1055/s-2000-7384
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Background and Study Aims: Standardization of the endoscopic report is a key issue for future research in the field of digestive endoscopy. The Minimal Standard Terminology (MST) has been proposed by the European Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) as a structured language for production of computerized endoscopic reports. The aim of this study was to validate version 1.0 of this terminology prospectively, by collecting cases in a multicenter, multilingual trial. Methods: Endoscopic cases (esophagogastroduodenoscopy [EGD], colonoscopy, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography [ERCP]) were prospectively collected in nine university hospitals in Europe, using the same software. Reports were produced in the local language, but the software allowed comparison of reports between languages, and global analysis of the database. Outcome measures were the adequacy of terms proposed in the MST to describe "reasons for performing an endoscopy", "findings", and "endoscopic diagnoses", frequency of use and content of free-text fields, and types of lesions described. Results: A total of 6232 reports were analyzed, including 3447 gastroscopies, 1743 colonoscopies, and 1042 ERCPs. Overall, terms originally contained in the MST were adequate to describe fully 91.0% of all examinations where "reasons for endoscopy" were described, 99.5% of examinations where "findings" were described, 95.8% of all examinations containing descriptions of "endoscopic diagnosis", 98.9% of examinations containing descriptions of "additional diagnostic procedures", and 94.8% of examinations containing descriptions of "additional therapeutic procedures", Free-text fields were only used in the ether cases (less than 5% of cases in average). Conclusions: The MST appeared adequate to cover a large part of routine endoscopy reports, and could thus be used as a tool for standardization of endoscopic reports in clinical practice. The latter could be significantly improved by the use of a structured and standardized terminology for the production of endoscopic reports.
引用
收藏
页码:345 / 355
页数:11
相关论文
共 10 条
  • [1] ALDRIDGE MC, 1986, LANCET, V2, P833
  • [2] Crespi M, 1996, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V91, P191
  • [3] CRESPI M, 1994, AM J GASTROENTEROL, V89, pS144
  • [4] Delvaux M, 1996, Gastroenterologist, V4, P3
  • [5] Performance of panel-based criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of colonoscopy: a prospective study
    Froehlich, F
    Pache, I
    Burnand, B
    Vader, JP
    Fried, M
    Beglinger, C
    Stalder, G
    Gyr, K
    Thorens, J
    Schneider, C
    Kosecoff, J
    Kolodny, M
    DuBois, RW
    Gonvers, JJ
    Brook, RH
    [J]. GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1998, 48 (02) : 128 - 136
  • [6] Appropriateness and diagnostic yield of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in an open-access endoscopy unit
    Gonvers, JJ
    Burnand, B
    Froehlich, F
    Pache, I
    Thorens, J
    Fried, M
    Kosecoff, J
    Vader, JP
    Brook, RH
    [J]. ENDOSCOPY, 1996, 28 (08) : 661 - 666
  • [7] MARATKA Z, 1994, TERMINOLOGY DEFINITI
  • [8] Misiewicz J.J., 1990, 9TH WORLD C GASTR SY, P1
  • [9] *NAT EL MAN ASS, 1997, DIG IM COMM MED DI S, V15
  • [10] *NAT EL MAN ASS, 1997, DIG IM COMM MED DI S, V23