Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Endosc Int Open 2022; 10(06): E776-E786
DOI: 10.1055/a-1809-4219
Original article

Quality measures in endoscopy: A systematic analysis of the overall scientific level of evidence and conflicts of interest

Simcha Weissman
1   Department of Medicine, Hackensack Meridian Health Palisades Medical Center, North Bergen, New Jersey, United States
,
Muhammad Aziz
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, United States
,
Matthew R. Baniqued
3   Hackensack Meridian Health School of Medicine, Hackensack, New Jersey, United States
,
Vikas Taneja
4   Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Mohammed El-Dallal
4   Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Wade Lee-Smith
2   Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Toledo Medical Center, Toledo, Ohio, United States
,
Sameh Elias
1   Department of Medicine, Hackensack Meridian Health Palisades Medical Center, North Bergen, New Jersey, United States
,
Joseph D. Feuerstein
5   Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background and study aims Quality measures were established to develop standards to help assess quality of care, yet variation in endoscopy exists. We performed a systematic review to assess the overall quality of evidence cited in formulating quality measures in endoscopy.

Methods A systematic search was performed on multiple databases from inception until November 15, 2020, to examine the quality measures proposed by all major societies. Quality measures were assessed for their level of quality evidence and categorized as category A (guideline-based), category B (observational studies) or category C (expert opinion). They were also examined for the type of measure (process, structure, outcome), the quality, measurability, review, existing conflicts of interest (COI), and patient participation of the quality measure.

Results An aggregate total of 214 quality measures from nine societies (15 manuscripts) were included and analyzed. Of quality measures in endoscopy, 71.5 %, 23.8 %, and 4.7 % were based on low, moderate, and high quality of evidence, respectively. The proportion of high-quality evidence across societies was significantly different (P = 0.028). Of quality measures, 76 % were quantifiable, 18 % contained patient-centric outcomes, and 7 % reported outcome measures. None of the organizations reported on patient involvement or external review, six disclosed existing COI, and 40 % were published more than 5 years ago.

Conclusions Quality measures are important to standardize clinical practice. Because over 70 % of quality measures in endoscopy are based on low-quality evidence, further studies are needed to improve the overall quality to effectively set a standard, reduce variation, and improve care in endoscopic practice.



Publication History

Received: 22 July 2021

Accepted after revision: 15 March 2022

Article published online:
10 June 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Comment to this article:

Endoscopy International Open – recently publishedEndoscopy 2022; 54(07): 731-731
DOI: 10.1055/a-1776-4179

 

  • References

  • 1 Weissman S, Goldowsky A, Mehta TI. et al. Are quality metrics in inflammatory bowel disease rooted on substantial quality evidence? a systematic review. J Crohns Colitis 2020; 16: 336-354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Gurudu SR, Ramirez FC. Quality metrics in endoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 9: 228-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Vadlamudi C, Brethauer S. Quality in endoscopy. Surg Clin North Am 2020; 100: 1021-1047
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Minoli G, Meucci G, Prada A. et al. Quality assurance and colonoscopy. Endoscopy 1999; 31: 522-527
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ball JE, Osbourne J, Jowett S. et al. Quality improvement programme to achieve acceptable colonoscopy completion rates: prospective before and after study. BMJ 2004; 329: 665-667
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rex DK, Bond JH, Winawer S. et al. Quality in the technical performance of colonoscopy and the continuous quality improvement process for colonoscopy: recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 1296-1308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rex DK, Petrini JL, Baron TH. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101: 873-885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Feuerstein JD, Akbari M, Gifford AE. et al. Systematic review: the quality of the scientific evidence and conflicts of interest in international inflammatory bowel disease practice guidelines. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2013; 37: 937-946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sardar P, Giri J, Jaff MR. et al. Strength of evidence underlying the american heart association/american college of cardiology guidelines on endovascular and surgical treatment of peripheral vascular disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2019; 12: 1-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Duarte-Garcia A, Zamore R, Wong JB. The evidence basis for the American College of Rheumatology Practice Guidelines. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 146-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wennberg JE. Unwarranted variations in healthcare delivery: implications for academic medical centres. BMJ 2002; 325: 961-964
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Vanclooster A, Cassiman D, Steenbergen WV. et al. The quality of hereditary haemochromatosis guidelines : A comparative analysis. Clin Res Hepatol Gastroenterol 2015; 39: 205-214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brito JP, Domecq JP, Murad MH. et al. The Endocrine Society Guidelines: when the confidence cart goes before the evidence horse. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013; 98: 3246-3252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Eubank BH, Mohtadi NG, Lafave MR. Using the modified Delphi method to establish clinical consensus for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with rotator cuff pathology. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 56
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J. et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: j4008
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Sharma P, Parasa S, Shaheen N. Developing quality metrics for upper endoscopy. gastroenterology 2020; 158: 9-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Rex DK, Schoenfeld PS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for colonoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 72-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Park WG, Shaheen NJ, Cohen J. et al. Quality Indicators for EGD. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 60-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Rizk MK, Sawhney MS, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators common to all GI endoscopic procedures. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110: 48-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Calderwood AH, Day LW, Muthusamy VR. et al. ASGE guideline for infection control during GI endoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 2018; 87: 1167-1179
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Day LW, Cohen J, Greenwald D. et al. Quality indicators for gastrointestinal endoscopy units. VideoGIE 2017; 26: 119-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Park WG, Shaheen NJ, Cohen J. et al. Quality indicators for EGD. Gastrointest Endosc 2015; 81: 17-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Beg S, Ragunath K, Wyman A. et al. Quality standards in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy: a position statement of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (AUGIS). Gut 2017; 66: 1886-1899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Armstrong D, Barkun A, Bridges R. et al. Canadian Association of Gastroenterology consensus guidelines on safety and quality indicators in endoscopy. Can J Gastroenterol 2012; 26: 17-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kaminski MF, Thomas-Gibson S, Bugajski M. et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2017; 49: 378-397
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Valori R, Cortas G, de Lange T. et al. Performance measures for endoscopy services: a European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Quality Improvement Initiative. Endoscopy 2018; 50: 1186-1204
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Atkin WS, Valori R, Kuipers EJ. et al. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition-Colonoscopic surveillance following adenoma removal. Endoscopy 2012; 44: SE151-SE163
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Fletcher RH, Nadel MR, Allen JI. et al. The quality of colonoscopy services--responsibilities of referring clinicians: a consensus statement of the Quality Assurance Task Group, National Colorectal Cancer Roundtable. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25: 1230-1234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Grupo de Trabajo de “Indicadores de calidad en endoscopia” de la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD). Quality indicators in colonoscopy. The colonoscopy procedure. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2018; 110: 316-326
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Jover R, Herráiz M, Alarcón O. et al. Clinical practice guidelines: quality of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. Endoscopy 2012; 44: 444-451
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. JAMA 1998; 280: 1000-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2001
    Google Scholar
  • 34 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924-926
    Google Scholar
  • 35 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Lo B, Field MJ. Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Conflicts of Interest and Development of Clinical Practice Guidelines. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2009 7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22928/
    Google Scholar
  • 36 Panzer RJ, Gitomer RS, Greene WH. et al. increasing demands for quality measurement. JAMA 2013; 310: 1971-1980
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar