World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025
Endoscopists and endoscopic assistants' qualifications, but not their biopsy rates, improve gastric precancerous lesions detection rate.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shen Yao, Gao Xiao-Juan, Zhang Xiao-Xue, Zhao Jia-Min, Hu Fei-Fan, Han Jing-Lue, Tian Wen-Ying, Yang Mei, Wang Yun-Fei, Lv Jia-Le, Zhan Qiang, An Fang-Mei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Detecting gastric precancerous lesions (GPLs) is critical for the early diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer. Endoscopy combined with tissue examination is an important method for detecting GPLs. However, negative biopsy results often increase patients' risks, economic burdens, and lead to additional healthcare costs. Improving the detection rate of GPLs and reducing the rate of negative biopsies is currently a key focus in endoscopic quality control.
AIM: To explore the relationships between the endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR), qualifications of endoscopists and endoscopic assistants, and detection rate of GPLs.
METHODS: EBR, endoscopists, and endoscopic assistants were divided into four groups: Low, moderate, high, and very high levels. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the relationships between EBR and the qualifications of endoscopists with respect to the detection rate of positive lesions. Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between EBR, endoscopist or endoscopic assistant qualifications, and the detection rate of positive lesions.
RESULTS: Compared with those in the low EBR group, the odds ratio (OR) values for detecting positive lesions in the moderate, high, and very high EBR groups were 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.19, P < 0.001], 1.22 (95%CI: 1.14-1.31, P < 0.001), and 1.38 (95%CI: 1.29-1.47, P < 0.001), respectively. EBR was positively correlated with the detection rate of gastric precancerous conditions (atrophic gastritis/intestinal metaplasia) (ρ = 0.465, P = 0.004). In contrast, the qualifications of the endoscopists were positively correlated with GPLs detection (ρ = 0.448, P = 0.005). Compared to endoscopists with low qualification levels, those with moderate, high, and very high qualification levels endoscopists demonstrated increased detection rates of GPLs by 13% (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.98-1.31), 20% (OR = 1.20, 95%CI: 1.03-1.39), and 32% (OR = 1.32, 95%CI: 1.15-1.52), respectively. Further analysis revealed that the qualifications of endoscopists were positively correlated with the detection rates of GPLs in the cardia (ρ = 0.350, P = 0.034), angularis (ρ = 0.396, P = 0.015) and gastric body (ρ = 0.453, P = 0.005) but not in the antrum (ρ = 0.292, P = 0.079). Moreover, the experience of endoscopic assistants was positively correlated with the detection rate of precancerous lesions by endoscopists with low or moderate qualifications (ρ = 0.427, P = 0.015).
CONCLUSION: Endoscopists and endoscopic assistants with high/very high qualifications, but not EBR, can improve the detection rate of GPLs. These results provide reliable evidence for the development of gastroscopic quality control indicators.
AIM: To explore the relationships between the endoscopist biopsy rate (EBR), qualifications of endoscopists and endoscopic assistants, and detection rate of GPLs.
METHODS: EBR, endoscopists, and endoscopic assistants were divided into four groups: Low, moderate, high, and very high levels. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to analyze the relationships between EBR and the qualifications of endoscopists with respect to the detection rate of positive lesions. Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses were used to evaluate the correlation between EBR, endoscopist or endoscopic assistant qualifications, and the detection rate of positive lesions.
RESULTS: Compared with those in the low EBR group, the odds ratio (OR) values for detecting positive lesions in the moderate, high, and very high EBR groups were 1.12 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.19, P < 0.001], 1.22 (95%CI: 1.14-1.31, P < 0.001), and 1.38 (95%CI: 1.29-1.47, P < 0.001), respectively. EBR was positively correlated with the detection rate of gastric precancerous conditions (atrophic gastritis/intestinal metaplasia) (ρ = 0.465, P = 0.004). In contrast, the qualifications of the endoscopists were positively correlated with GPLs detection (ρ = 0.448, P = 0.005). Compared to endoscopists with low qualification levels, those with moderate, high, and very high qualification levels endoscopists demonstrated increased detection rates of GPLs by 13% (OR = 1.13, 95%CI: 0.98-1.31), 20% (OR = 1.20, 95%CI: 1.03-1.39), and 32% (OR = 1.32, 95%CI: 1.15-1.52), respectively. Further analysis revealed that the qualifications of endoscopists were positively correlated with the detection rates of GPLs in the cardia (ρ = 0.350, P = 0.034), angularis (ρ = 0.396, P = 0.015) and gastric body (ρ = 0.453, P = 0.005) but not in the antrum (ρ = 0.292, P = 0.079). Moreover, the experience of endoscopic assistants was positively correlated with the detection rate of precancerous lesions by endoscopists with low or moderate qualifications (ρ = 0.427, P = 0.015).
CONCLUSION: Endoscopists and endoscopic assistants with high/very high qualifications, but not EBR, can improve the detection rate of GPLs. These results provide reliable evidence for the development of gastroscopic quality control indicators.