Impact of cap-assisted colonoscopy on the learning curve and quality in colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Impact of an artificial intelligence-aided endoscopic diagnosis system on improving endoscopy quality for trainees in colonoscopy: Prospective, randomized, multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to evaluate whether the use of CAD EYE (Fujifilm, Tokyo, Japan) for colonoscopy improves colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.

METHODS

The patients in this multicenter randomized controlled trial were divided into Group A (observation using CAD EYE) and Group B (standard observation). Six trainees performed colonoscopies using a back-to-back method in pairs with gastroenterology experts. The primary end-point was the trainees' adenoma detection rate (ADR), and the secondary end-points were the trainees' adenoma miss rate (AMR) and Assessment of Competency in Endoscopy (ACE) tool scores. Each trainee's learning curve was evaluated using a cumulative sum (CUSUM) control chart.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 231 patients (Group A, n = 113; Group B, n = 118). The ADR was not significantly different between the two groups. Group A had a significantly lower AMR (25.6% vs. 38.6%, P = 0.033) and number of missed adenomas per patient (0.5 vs. 0.9, P = 0.004) than Group B. Group A also had significantly higher ACE tool scores for pathology identification (2.26 vs. 2.07, P = 0.030) and interpretation and identification of pathology location (2.18 vs. 2.00, P = 0.038). For the CUSUM learning curve, Group A showed a trend toward a lower number of cases of missed multiple adenomas by the six trainees.

CONCLUSION

CAD EYE did not improve ADR but decreased the AMR and improved the ability to accurately locate and identify colorectal adenomas. CAD EYE can be assumed to be beneficial for improving colonoscopy quality in gastroenterology trainees.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000044031).

Comparative Efficacy of Endoscopic Assist Devices on Colonic Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review With Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Numerous endoscopic assist devices exist, yet data surrounding their comparative efficacy is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with network meta-analysis to determine the comparative efficacy of endoscopic assist devices on colonic adenoma detection.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed using multiple electronic databases through July 2020, to identify all randomized controlled trials and dual-arm observational studies compared with either other endoscopic assist devices and/or standard colonoscopy. The primary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). Secondary outcomes included polyp detection rate (PDR), serrated adenoma detection rate (SADR), right-sided adenoma detection rate (RADR), and proximal adenoma detection rate (PADR).

RESULTS

Fifty-seven studies (31,051 patients) met inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Network meta-analysis identified an enhanced ADR among (clear) cap [odds ratio (OR): 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.45-4.99], endocuff, (OR: 4.95, 95% CI: 3.15-7.78), and endoring (OR: 3.68, 95% CI: 1.47-9.20)-with no significant difference amongst any particular device. Similar findings for PDR were also seen. Enhanced SADR was identified for endocuff (OR: 9.43) and endoring (OR: 4.06) compared with standard colonoscopy. Enhanced RADR (OR: 5.36) and PADR (OR: 3.78) were only identified for endocuff. Endocuff comparatively demonstrated the greatest ADR, PDR, and SADR, but this was not significant when compared with the other assist devices. Subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials identified enhanced PDR and ADR for both cap and endocuff.

CONCLUSIONS

Endoscopic assist devices displayed increased ADR and PDR as compared with standard colonoscopy and thus should be widely adopted. A nonsignificant trend was seen toward higher efficacy for the endocuff device.

Indications and outcomes of endoscopic resection for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions: A narrative review

In the last years, endoscopic techniques gained a crucial role in the treatment of colorectal flat lesions. At the same time, the importance of a reliable assessment of such lesions to predict the malignancy and the depth of invasion of the colonic wall emerged. The current unsolved dilemma about the endoscopic excision techniques concerns the necessity of a reliable submucosal invasive cancer assessment system that can stratify the risk of the post-procedural need for surgery. Accordingly, this narrative literature review aims to compare the available diagnostic strategies in predicting malignancy and to give a guide about the best techniques to employ. We performed a literature search using electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library). We collected all articles about endoscopic mucosal resection (EMR) and endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) registering the outcomes. Moreover, we analyzed all meta-analyses comparing EMR vs ESD outcomes for colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions of any size, preoperatively estimated as non-invasive. Seven meta-analysis studies, mainly Eastern, were included in the analysis comparing 124 studies and overall 22954 patients who underwent EMR and ESD procedures. Of these, eighty-two were retrospective, twenty-four perspective, nine case-control, and six cohorts, while three were randomized clinical trials. A total of 18118 EMR and 10379 ESD were completed for a whole of 28497 colorectal sessile or non-polypoid lesions > 5-10 mm in size. In conclusion, it is crucial to enhance the preoperative diagnostic workup, especially in deciding the most suitable endoscopic method for radical resection of flat colorectal lesions at risk of underlying malignancy. Additionally, the ESD necessitates further improvement because of the excessively time-consuming as well as the intraprocedural technical hindrances and related complications. We found a higher rate of en bloc resections and R0 for ESD than EMR for non-pedunculated colorectal lesions. Nevertheless, despite the lower local recurrence rates, ESD had greater perforation rates and needed lengthier procedural times. The prevailing risk for additional surgery in ESD rather than EMR for complications or oncologic reasons is still uncertain.

Computer-aided detection versus advanced imaging for detection of colorectal neoplasia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Computer-aided detection (CADe) techniques based on artificial intelligence algorithms can assist endoscopists in detecting colorectal neoplasia. CADe has been associated with an increased adenoma detection rate, a key quality indicator, but the utility of CADe compared with existing advanced imaging techniques and distal attachment devices is unclear.

METHODS

For this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we did a comprehensive search of PubMed/Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from inception to Nov 30, 2020, for randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of the following endoscopic techniques in detecting colorectal neoplasia: CADe, high definition (HD) white-light endoscopy, chromoendoscopy, or add-on devices (ie, systems that increase mucosal visualisation, such as full spectrum endoscopy [FUSE] or G-EYE balloon endoscopy). We collected data on adenoma detection rates, sessile serrated lesion detection rates, the proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and withdrawal times. A frequentist framework, random-effects network meta-analysis was done to compare artificial intelligence with chromoendoscopy, increased mucosal visualisation systems, and HD white-light endoscopy (the control group). We estimated odds ratios (ORs) for the adenoma detection rate, sessile serrated lesion detection rate, and proportion of large adenomas detected per colonoscopy, and calculated mean differences for withdrawal time, with 95% CIs. Risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

FINDINGS

50 randomised controlled trials, comprising 34 445 participants, were included in our main analysis (six trials of CADe, 18 of chromoendoscopy, and 26 of increased mucosal visualisation systems). HD white-light endoscopy was the control technique in all 50 studies. Compared with the control technique, the adenoma detection rate was 7·4% higher with CADe (OR 1·78 [95% CI 1·44-2·18]), 4·4% higher with chromoendoscopy (1·22 [1·08-1·39]), and 4·1% higher with increased mucosal visualisation systems (1·16 [1·04-1·28]). CADe ranked as the superior technique for adenoma detection (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking); cross-comparisons of CADe with other imaging techniques showed a significant increase in the adenoma detection rate with CADe versus increased mucosal visualisation systems (OR 1·54 [95% CI 1·22-1·94]; low certainty of evidence) and with CADe versus chromoendoscopy (1·45 [1·14-1·85]; moderate certainty of evidence). When focusing on large adenomas (≥10 mm) there was a significant increase in the detection of large adenomas only with CADe (OR 1·69 [95% CI 1·10-2·60], moderate certainty of evidence) when compared to HD white-light endoscopy; CADe ranked as the superior strategy for detection of large adenomas. CADe also seemed to be the superior strategy for detection of sessile serrated lesions (with moderate confidence in hierarchical ranking), although no significant increase in the sessile serrated lesion detection rate was shown (OR 1·37 [95% CI 0·65-2·88]). No significant difference in withdrawal time was reported for CADe compared with the other techniques.

INTERPRETATION

Based on the published literature, detection rates of colorectal neoplasia are higher with CADe than with other techniques such as chromoendoscopy or tools that increase mucosal visualisation, supporting wider incorporation of CADe strategies into community endoscopy services.

FUNDING

None.

Adenoma and Advanced Adenoma Detection Rates of Water Exchange, Endocuff, and Cap Colonoscopy: A Network Meta-Analysis with Pooled Data of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

A network meta-analysis showed that low-cost optimization of existing resources was as effective as distal add-on devices in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR). We assessed the impacts of water exchange (WE), Endocuff, and cap colonoscopy on ADR and advanced adenoma detection rate (AADR). We hypothesized that WE may be superior at improving ADR and AADR.

METHODS

The literature was searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported ADR as an outcome and included the keywords colonoscopy, and water exchange, Endocuff, or cap. We performed traditional network meta-analyses with random effect models comparing ADR and AADR of each method using air insufflation (AI) as the control and reported the odds ratios with 95% confidence interval. Performances were ranked based on P-score.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs met inclusion criteria. Fourteen RCTs also reported AADR. Both WE [1.46 (1.20-1.76)] and Endocuff [1.39 (1.17-1.66)] significantly increase ADR, while cap has no impact on ADR [1.00 (0.82-1.22)]. P-scores for WE (0.88), Endocuff (0.79), cap (0.17), and AI (0.17) suggest WE has the highest ADR. WE [1.38 (1.12-1.70)], but not Endocuff [0.96 (0.76-1.21)] or cap [1.06 (0.85-1.32)], significantly increases AADR. P-scores for WE (0.98), cap (0.50), AI (0.31), and Endocuff (0.21) suggest WE is more effective at increasing AADR. The results did not change after adjusting for age, proportion of males, and withdrawal time.

CONCLUSION

WE may be the modality of choice to maximally improve ADR and AADR.

Artificial Intelligence-Aided Colonoscopy for Polyp Detection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background: This study aimed to compare artificial intelligence (AI)-aided colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for polyp detection. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed and Ovid for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing AI-aided colonoscopy with conventional colonoscopy for polyp detection. The last search was performed on July 22, 2020. The primary outcome was polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR). Results: Seven RCTs published between 2019 and 2020 with a total of 5427 individuals were included. When compared with conventional colonoscopy, AI-aided colonoscopy significantly improved PDR (P < .001, odds ratio [OR] = 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.75 to 2.19, I² = 0%) and ADR (P < .001, OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 1.52 to 1.95, I² = 33%). Besides, polyps in the AI-aided group were significantly smaller in size than those in conventional group (P = .004, weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95% CI: -0.81 to -0.15, I² = 0%). In addition, AI-aided group detected significantly less proportion of advanced adenoma (P = .03, OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.97, I² = 46%), pedicle polyps (P < .001, OR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.49 to 0.83, I² = 0%), and pedicle adenomas (P < .001, OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.80, I² = 0%). Conclusion: AI-aided colonoscopy could significantly increase the PDR and ADR, especially for those with small size. Besides, the shape and pathology recognition of the AI technique should be further improved in the future.

Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy versus cap-assisted colonoscopy for adenoma detection rate: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Add-on devices have been widely used in clinical practice. The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the adenoma detection rate between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) and cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC).

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane databases were searched. Outcomes included adenoma detection rate, cecal intubation rate, cecal intubation time, and withdrawal time. Dichotomous data were pooled to obtain the odds ratio or risk ratio. Continuous data were pooled using the mean difference.

RESULTS

Of the 240 articles reviewed, six randomized controlled trials were included, with a total of 1994 patients. In the meta-analysis, no statistical difference in adenoma detection rate was detected between EAC and CAC (47.0% vs 45.1%; P = 0.33). EAC significantly improved detection rate of diminutive adenomas/polyps compared with CAC (P = 0.01). Cecal intubation was achieved in 96.5% in EAC group and 97.9% in CAC group (P = 0.04). Besides, no statistical difference was found in cecal intubation time (P = 0.86), withdrawal time (P = 0.88), small adenomas/polyps (P = 0.60), or large adenomas/polyps (P = 0.95).

CONCLUSION

EAC and CAC have their respective merits. EAC significantly improve the detection of diminutive adenomas/polyps. CAC was better in cecal intubation rate.

Clear cap-assisted luminal stenting may improve technical success in gastroduodenal and colonic obstruction

Background  Luminal stenting is safe, effective, and at times the preferred method for relieving gastrointestinal obstruction. However, stent placement is not technically feasible when lesions cannot be traversed with a guidewire, resulting in the need for more invasive methods of palliation and urgent/emergent surgical intervention. In this series, we report our experience with cap-assisted stenting to improve lumen visualization in obstructed segments of the gastrointestinal tract and salvage cases that may have otherwise resulted in technical failure. Methods  A clear cap (i. e. distal attachment) was affixed to the scope tip to facilitate visualization and stenting in two cases of gastroduodenal obstruction and three cases of colonic obstruction. Indications for stent placement included malignant obstruction, diverticulitis-associated obstruction, and Crohn's disease-associated stricture. Results  In this report, we demonstrate that use of a clear cap facilitated endoscopic stenting in challenging cases of malignant and benign gastroduodenal and colonic obstruction. Conclusions  A clear cap for endoscopic stenting can be used in cases in which standard techniques are unsuccessful or those anticipated to be technically difficult at the outset. Cases with tortuous anatomy or particularly tight, friable, or exophytic obstructive lesions may benefit most from this novel technical modification.

Comparison of colon adenoma detection rates using cap-assisted and Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives and study aim  Colonoscopy prevents colorectal cancer by removing adenomatous polyps, but missed adenomas lead to interval cancers. Different devices have been used to increase adenoma detection rates (ADR). Two such devices of interest are the transparent cap (Olympus) and Endocuff (ARC Medical). Our study aimed to compare differences in ADR between Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC), cap-assisted colonoscopy (CAC) and standard colonoscopy (SC). Patients and methods  A sample size of 126 subjects was calculated to determine an effect size of 30 %. Patients undergoing screening or surveillance colonoscopy between March 2016 and January 2017 were randomized to SC, CAC or EAC groups. Three experienced endoscopists performed all colonoscopies. Patient demographics, procedure indication, Boston Bowel Prep Score (BBPS), withdrawal time, polyp size, location, histopathology, were analyzed. Results  There was no difference in ADR (52 %, 40 % and 54 %) in the SC, CAC and EAC groups respectively ( P  = 0.4). Similar findings were also observed for proximal ADR (45 %, 35 %, and 50 %, P  = 0.4) and SSA detection rate (16 %, 14 %, and 23 %, P  = 0.5). EAC detected higher mean ADR per colonoscopy compared to CAC (1.70 vs 0.76, P  = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference in mean ADR per positive colonoscopy (2.08, 1.63, and 2.59, P  = 0.21). Conclusion  In a randomized controlled trial comparing AC to CAC and SC, neither device conferred additional benefits in ADR among high detectors. When comparing each device, EAC may be better than CAC at detecting more total adenomas.

Compared Abilities of Endoscopic Techniques to Increase Colon Adenoma Detection Rates: A Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is a quality metric for colorectal cancer screening. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the overall and comparative efficacies of different endoscopic techniques in adenoma detection.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of published articles and abstracts, through March 15, 2018, to identify randomized controlled trials of adults undergoing colonoscopy that compared the efficacy of different devices in detection of adenomas. Our final analysis included 74 2-arm trials that comprised 44948 patients. These studies compared efficacies of add-on devices (cap, endocuff, endo-rings, G-EYE), enhanced imaging techniques (chromoendoscopy, narrow-band imaging, flexible spectral imaging color enhancement, blue laser imaging), new scopes (full-spectrum endoscopy, extra-wide-angle-view colonoscopy, dual focus), and low-cost optimizing existing resources (water-aided colonoscopy, second observer, dynamic position change), alone or in combination with high-definition colonoscopy or each other. Primary outcome was increase in ADR. We performed pairwise and network meta-analyses, and appraised quality of evidence using GRADE.

RESULTS

Low-cost optimizing existing resources (odds ratio [OR], 1.29; 95% CI,1.17-1.43), enhanced imaging techniques (OR,1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.35), and add-on devices (OR,1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.29) were associated with a moderate increase in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy; there was low to moderate confidence in estimates. Use of newer scopes was not associated with significant increases in ADR compared with high-definition colonoscopy (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.21). In our comparative efficacy analysis, no specific technology for increasing ADR was superior to others. We did not find significant differences between technologies in detection of advanced ADR, polyp detection rate, or mean number of adenomas/patient.

CONCLUSIONS

In a network meta-analysis of published trials, we found that low-cost optimization of existing resources to be as effective as enhanced endoscopic imaging, or add-on devices, in increasing ADR during high-definition colonoscopy.

Determination of withdrawal times in individualized opportunistic screening colonoscopies

To investigate effects of bowel preparation, experience level of colonoscopists, and colonoscopy withdrawal time (CWT) on the quality of an individual opportunistic screening colonoscopy, according to adenoma detection rate (ADR).Data were retrospectively analyzed from opportunistic screening colonoscopies (n = 16,951) at 4 hospitals of various care levels in China.The ADR positively correlated with the experience level of the colonoscopist. The individualized CWT varied, depending on the quality of bowel preparation and the number of colonoscopies performed previously by the colonoscopist. In a setting of adequate bowel preparation, the mean CWT decreased with the increased experience of the colonoscopist. With poor and inadequate bowel preparation, no colonoscopist at any level of experience could obtain a satisfactory ADR.For adequately prepared colonoscopies, minimum CWTs have been determined. Repeat colonoscopy is strongly recommended for patients with poor bowel preparation, regardless of the colonoscopist's experience.

A pilot study of a novel variable-stiffness stylet for efficient colonoscope insertion with <i>ex-vivo</i> colon model

Objectives: The variable-stiffness colonoscope is reportedly useful for making colonoscope insertion easier. However, this function is not associated with all colonoscopes. We developed a variable-stiffness stylet that can be inserted into the endoscope instrumentation channel to change the rigidity of the endoscope. Methods: We developed a stylet with adjustable stiffness and investigated its utility in colonoscope insertion using an ex-vivo model. Four endoscopists performed 24 colonoscope insertions, alternating between using the stylet (Stylet method) and the conventional method. We assessed insertion rate, rate of applying abdominal compression, and insertion time between the two groups. Results: In all procedures, the endoscope was inserted up to the cecum. There were significantly fewer external abdominal compressions with the Stylet method (1/12, 8.3%) compared to the conventional method (6/12, 50%). The insertion time was shorter with the Stylet method (140.9 ± 53.7 s) compared to the conventional method (181.3 ± 64.9 s). Conclusions: Using the variable-stiffness stylet, currently under development, resulted in significantly fewer external abdominal compressions and tended to have shorter insertion time.

The Role of Behind Folds Visualizing Techniques and Technologies in Improving Adenoma Detection Rate

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the Western world and is thought to develop from premalignant polyps. Over the past decade, several behind folds visualizing techniques (BFTs) have become available to improve polyp detection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to compare BFTs with conventional colonoscopy (CC).

RECENT FINDINGS

In the past five years, 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 8384 patients comparing different BFTs with CC were published. The overall relative risks for adenoma detection rate, polyp detection rate, and adenoma miss rate comparing BFTs with CC were 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.10; P = 0.15), 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.09; P = 0.28), and 0.70 (95% CI 0.46-1.05; P = 0.08), respectively. Other quality metrics for colonoscopy were not significantly different between BFT-assisted colonoscopy and CC either. This meta-analysis of RCTs published in the past five years does not show a significant benefit of BFTs on any of the important quality metrics of colonoscopy. The lack of additional effect of BFTs might be due to improved awareness of colonoscopy quality metrics and colonoscopy skills among endoscopists combined with improvements of conventional colonoscope technology.

Variability in cecal intubation rate by calculation method: a call for standardization of key performance indicators in endoscopy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The cecal intubation rate (CIR) is a widely accepted key performance indicator (KPI) in colonoscopy but lacks a universal calculation method. We aimed to assess whether differences in CIR calculation methods could have an impact on perceived trainee outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review of CIR calculation methods was conducted on major societal guidelines (United Kingdom, European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ESGE] and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy [ASGE]) and trainee-inclusive studies. Trainees awarded colonoscopy certification between June 2011 and 2016 were identified from the United Kingdom e-portfolio and selected as a validation cohort. For each trainee, both the crude and unassisted CIR were calculated for 50 post-certification procedures using definitions from the 3 international guidelines. The resulting CIRs, and the proportions of endoscopists failing to meet the minimum standard of CIR ≥90%, were then compared across these definitions.

RESULTS

Across the 3 guidelines and 37 eligible studies identified, differences in CIR calculation methodology were demonstrated. These related to adjustment criteria (18 studies) and whether unassisted CIR was stipulated (18 studies). In the validation cohort of 733 trainees (36,650 procedures), the median crude CIR ranged from 96% (ESGE) to 98% (ASGE) (P < .001) and whether unassisted CIR was specified (ESGE, 94%; ASGE, 96%; P < .001). The proportion of trainees failing to achieve CIR ≥90% varied significantly across the different definitions, from 4.9% for the crude ASGE definition to 18.6% for the unassisted ESGE definition (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

CIR calculation methods vary among guidelines and research studies; this has an impact on trainee performance measures. With CIR used as an example, this study highlights the need for standardized definitions and calculations of KPIs in endoscopy.

Colonoscopy attachments for the detection of precancerous lesions during colonoscopy: A review of the literature

Although colonoscopy has been proven effective in reducing the incidence of colorectal cancer through the detection and removal of precancerous lesions, it remains an imperfect examination, as it can fail in detecting up to almost one fourth of existing adenomas. Among reasons accounting for such failures, is the inability to meticulously visualize the colonic mucosa located either proximal to haustral folds or anatomic curves, including the hepatic and splenic flexures. In order to overcome these limitations, various colonoscope attachments aiming to improve mucosal visualization have been developed. All of them - transparent cap, Endocuff, Endocuff Vision and Endorings - are simply mounted onto the distal tip of the scope. In this review article, we introduce the rationale of their development, present their mode of action and discuss in detail the effect of their implementation in the detection of lesions during colonoscopy.

Training in Endoscopy

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Progress towards the goal of high-quality endoscopy across health economies has been founded on high-quality structured training programmes linked to credentialing practice and ongoing performance monitoring. This review appraises the recent literature on training interventions, which may benefit performance and competency acquisition in novice endoscopy trainees.

RECENT FINDINGS

Increasing data on the learning curves for different endoscopic procedures has highlighted variations in performance amongst trainees. These differences may be dependent on the trainee, trainer and training programme. Evidence of the benefit of knowledge-based training, simulation training, hands-on courses and clinical training is available to inform the planning of ideal training pathway elements. The validation of performance assessment measures and global competency tools now also provides evidence on the effectiveness of training programmes to influence the learning curve. The impact of technological advances and intelligent metrics from national databases is also predicted to drive improvements and efficiencies in training programme design and monitoring of post-training outcomes. Training in endoscopy may be augmented through a series of pre-training and in-training interventions. In conjunction with performance metrics, these evidence-based interventions could be implemented into training pathways to optimise and quality assure training in endoscopy.