Oldie but goodie? Do attending endoscopists really need their fellows?

You are not lab rats at teaching hospitals: A systematic review of resident and fellow participation leads to improved colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Participation in colonoscopies is an essential aspect of endoscopic training. The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of fellow/trainee participation on colonoscopy outcomes.

METHODS

This meta-analysis was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO). From database inception to July 2022, studies investigating fellow involvement and colonoscopy outcomes were searched across Cochrane library, PubMed, and other databases. The random-effects model was applied to generate more conservative estimates. Sensitive analysis was conducted to explore whether the result would depend on a particular study. Egger's test and Begg's test were used to estimate the potential for publication bias.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies including 30,062 participants were included. We found that fellow/trainee involvement enhanced the overall rates of adenoma detection and polyp detection (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.14-1.40, p < 0.001; OR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.02-1.63, p = 0.020, respectively). The mean number of adenoma/polyps per colonoscopy was also higher with fellow/trainee participation (MD = 0.12, 95% CI = 0.08-0.17, p < 0.001; MD = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.02-0.28, p = 0.020, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In addition to its educational purpose, fellow or trainee involvement is associated with beneficial effects on colonoscopy outcomes.

Effect of fellow involvement on colonoscopy outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The effect of fellow involvement on colonoscopy outcomes is controversial. Thus, we evaluated this effect on adenoma detection rate (ADR) and on other colonoscopy quality indicators.

METHODS

MEDLINE and Cochrane central register of controlled trials were searched up to September 2018 for studies evaluating fellow-involved colonoscopies vs. attending physicians-only examinations in terms of colonoscopy outcomes. Primary outcome was ADR, while advanced ADR (AADR), mean number of adenomas per colonoscopy (MAC), cecum intubation rate (CIR) and adverse events rate comprised the secondary outcomes. The effect size on study outcomes was calculated using random-effects model and it is presented as Odds Ratio (OR) or Mean Difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Nineteen observational studies involving 34,059 patients (fellow-involved 16,875, attending physician-only 17,184) were included. Compared to the attending physician-only group, fellow involvement marginally increased ADR [OR (95%CI) = 1.12 (1.00-1.26); p = 0.06, I² = 76%]. Attending physicians with low-to-moderate ADR (<35%) benefited most from fellow's participation [OR (95%CI): 1.26 (1.13-1.40) vs. 1.12 (1.00-1.26); p = 0.03 when ADR < 35% and OR (95%CI): 1.29 (1.13-1.46) vs. 0.95 (0.78-1.16); p = 0.01 when ADR < 30%, respectively]. Moreover, fellow-involved group had higher MAC compared to attending-only group [MD (95%CI) = 0.12 (0.04-0.20); p = 0.002, I² = 53%]. No benefit from fellow involvement was detected either for AADR, CIR or adverse events rate.

CONCLUSIONS

Fellow involvement during colonoscopy is associated with more adenomas detected per procedure and with higher ADR when the attending physician-only group ADR is less than 35%.