• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Surgical Endoscopy >Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy.
【24h】

Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES): a valid measurement tool for technical skills in flexible endoscopy.

机译：胃肠道内窥镜检查技能全球评估（GAGES）：灵活的内窥镜检查技术技能的有效测量工具。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

BACKGROUND: Simulators may improve the efficiency, safety, and quality of endoscopic training. However, no objective, reliable, and valid tool exists to assess clinical endoscopic skills. Such a tool to measure the outcomes of educational strategies is a necessity. This multicenter, multidisciplinary trial aimed to develop instruments for evaluating basic flexible endoscopic skills and to demonstrate their reliability and validity. METHODS: The Global Assessment of Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) Upper Endoscopy (GAGES-UE) and Colonoscopy (GAGES-C) are rating scales developed by expert endoscopists. The GAGES scale was completed by the attending endoscopist (A) and an observer (O) in self-assessment (S) during procedures to establish interrater reliability (IRR, using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]) and internal consistency (IC, using Cronbach's alpha). Instrumentation was evaluated when possible and correlated with total scores. Construct and external validity were examined by comparing novice (NOV) and experienced (EXP) endoscopists (Student's t-test). Correlations were calculated for GAGES-UE and GAGES-C with participants who had performed both. RESULTS: For the 139 completed evaluations (60 NOV, 79 EXP), IRR (A vs. O) was 0.96 for GAGES-UE and 0.97 for GAGES-C. The IRR between S and A was 0.78 for GAGES-UE and 0.89 for GAGES-C. The IC was 0.89 for GAGES-UE, and 0.95 for GAGES-C. There were mean differences between the NOV and the EXP endoscopists for GAGE-UE (14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.001) and GAGE-C (11.8 +/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3; p < 0.001). Good correlation was found between the scores for the GAGE-UE and the GAGE-C (r = 0.75; n = 37). Instrumentation, when performed, demonstrated correlations with total scores of 0.84 (GAGE-UE; n = 73) and 0.86 (GAGE-C; n = 45). CONCLUSIONS: The GAGES-UE and GAGES-C are easy to administer and consistent and meet high standards of reliability and validity. They can be used to measure the effectiveness of simulator training and to provide specific feedback. The GAGES results can be generalized to North American and European endoscopists and may contribute to the definition of technical proficiency in endoscopy.
机译：背景：模拟器可以提高内窥镜训练的效率，安全性和质量。但是，没有客观，可靠和有效的工具来评估临床内窥镜检查技能。这种衡量教育战略成果的工具是必要的。这项多中心，多学科的试验旨在开发用于评估基本柔性内镜技术并证明其可靠性和有效性的仪器。方法：胃肠道内窥镜检查技能（GAGES）的整体评估上层内窥镜检查（GAGES-UE）和结肠镜检查（GAGES-C）是由专业内镜医师制定的评分量表。 GAGES量表由主诊内镜医师（A）和观察员（O）在建立间可靠度（IRR，使用组内相关系数[ICC]）和内部一致性（IC，使用Cronbach的alpha）。在可能的情况下评估仪器，并将其与总分相关联。通过比较新手（NOV）和经验丰富的（EXP）内镜医师（学生t检验）来检查结构和外部有效性。计算了两者均参加者的GAGES-UE和GAGES-C的相关性。结果：对于139个完成的评估（11月60日，79 EXP），GAGES-UE的IRR（A vs. O）为0.96，GAGES-C的IRR为0.97。对于GAGES-UE，S和A之间的IRR为0.78，对于GAGES-C，其IRR为0.89。对于GAGES-UE，IC为0.89;对于GAGES-C，IC为0.95。 GAGE-UE（14.4 +/- 3.7 vs. 18.5 +/- 1.6; p <0.001）和GAGE-C（11.8％+/- 3.8 vs. 18.8 +/- 1.3）的NOV和EXP内镜医师之间存在平均差异; p <0.001）。在GAGE-UE和GAGE-C的得分之间发现了良好的相关性（r = 0.75; n = 37）。仪器在执行时表现出的总分分别为0.84（GAGE-UE; n = 73）和0.86（GAGE-C; n = 45）。结论：GAGES-UE和GAGES-C易于管理且一致，并符合高标准的可靠性和有效性。它们可用于衡量模拟器培训的有效性并提供特定的反馈。 GAGES的结果可以推广到北美和欧洲的内镜医师，并且可能有助于定义内窥镜检查的技术水平。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号