Interobserver Reliability of the Paris Classification for Superficial Gastrointestinal Tract Neoplasms: A Systematic Review

Background and study aims

The Paris classification characterizes the morphology of superficial gastrointestinal tract neoplasms. This system has been shown to predict the risk of submucosal invasion in certain subtypes of lesions. There is limited data that assesses its agreement amongst endoscopists. We performed a systematic review to summarize the available literature on the interobserver reliability (IOR) of the Paris classification.

Methods

We conducted a search through December 2020 for studies reporting IOR of the Paris classification. Studies were included if they quantitatively evaluated the IOR of the Paris classification with at least five participating endoscopists. Two authors independently screened studies and abstracted data using an a priori-designed data collection form. Evaluation of study quality and risk of bias was performed using an adapted version of the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies.

Results

Of the 1,541 studies retrieved, 5 were included in the review. All studies were observational cohort studies published between 2014 and 2020. The IOR of the Paris classification was moderate amongst all four studies evaluating colorectal neoplasms (range, κ = 0.42 to κ = 0.54) and substantial in one study that evaluated gastric neoplasms (κw = 0.65). An educational intervention was conducted by three studies with variable methodology and no significant change in IOR.

Conclusions

IOR of the Paris classification is moderate for superficial colonic neoplasms. Further study is needed to determine the reliability of this system for superficial gastric lesions. Standardized training programs are required to investigate the impact of educational intervention on the Paris classification amongst endoscopists.

A128 GLOBAL TRENDS IN TRAINING AND CREDENTIALING GUIDELINES FOR GASTROINTESTINAL (GI) ENDOSCOPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Background

Credentialing in GI endoscopy is not a universally standardized process. National guidelines may provide a framework for local training, however in certain settings, training committees set minimal competency requirements that must be met before a clinician can be accredited to practice independently. There is a paucity of literature assessing the inter-societal and geographic variability in guidelines and training requirements in endoscopy.

Purpose

To systematically review the available credentialing guidelines proposed by different GI endoscopy societies and affiliated training committees internationally.

Method

We conducted a systematic review according to the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive literature search was performed for credentialing guidelines for GI endoscopy from inception until January 2022. Two reviewers screened and one reviewer abstracted data using a pre-defined data collection form.

Result(s)

From the 653 records obtained from our search, 20 credentialing guidelines from 12 different GI societies were ultimately included in the review. These guidelines encompassed the following procedures and outlined the following key-performance indicators; a) Colonoscopy: the recommended minimum number of procedures performed ranged from 150-275 with a minimum cecal intubation and adenoma detection rate of 85-90% and 20-30% respectively; b) EGD: the minimum number of procedures prior to credentialing ranged from 130-1000, the minimum duodenal intubation rate ranged from 95-100%, and the range for minimum number of upper GI bleeds managed was 20-45 (in addition to other procedural KPIs); c) ERCP: the recommended minimum number of procedures prior to credentialing ranged from 100-300 cases with a minimum selective duct cannulation rate of 80-90%. Guidelines for flexible sigmoidoscopy, EUS and capsule endoscopy were also obtained.

Image

Conclusion(s)

There is a general concordance amongst the various international GI societies with regards to minimum procedural volume and performance in key procedural tasks prior to credentialing, however the use of validated education assessment tools was lacking in the majority of guidelines. Additional KPI’s need to be explored for less routinely performed procedures such as EUS and capsule endoscopy.

Please acknowledge all funding agencies by checking the applicable boxes below

None

Disclosure of Interest

None Declared

A104 PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT (PPIN) IN IBD RESEARCH - A SCOPING REVIEW

Background

Over the past 10 years, interest in patient and public involvement (PPIn) in research has grown. Several arguments support the engagement of patients as partners in the research process. Patients with lived experience of a condition can offer their knowledge to study design as experience-based experts, helping researchers incorporate patient-pertinent outcomes. PPIn has also been shown to boost patient enrolment and retention in clinical trials. Benefits, challenges, and best practices of PPIn have been examined in other fields. However, to date, no study has examined PPIn in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) research. Many factors amenable to research involvement may impact IBD patients’ quality of life, including disease morbidity, complications, and efficacy/side effects of therapy.

Aims

This review aims to characterize methods of PPIn in IBD research and highlight themes relating to best practices, benefits, and challenges.

Methods

We ran a systematic search on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane for all IBD research studies in which IBD patients were involved in the research process. PPIn included but was not limited to patient input in one of the following 3 stages: Study Design (prioritization of research topics, outcome selection, study tool development), Study Execution (recruitment, data collection & analysis), and Dissemination of Research. After abstract and full-text screening, 14 studies were selected.

Results

Patients were recruited for PPIn through IBD and patient organizations (7/14), outpatient clinics (4/14), tertiary care sites (2/14), and pre-existing patient advisory groups (1/14). The majority of studies (11/14) engaged patients in the development of study materials, which included a physical activity intervention for stoma patients, an IBD pregnancy decision aid, and a quality of life questionnaire. Two studies interviewed patients to determine comprehensibility of survey items and guide revisions. One study involved patients in data analysis and manuscript development. Most consultations were open-ended, including focus groups (8/14) and semi-structured interviews (3/14). According to study authors, PPIn helps guide IBD research priorities by focusing on patient-relevant issues. Authors also cited the role of PPIn in designing patient-friendly study tools. One challenge reported by 2 studies was that PPIn requires patients to have access to high-quality information and requires a significant time commitment, which may contribute to demographic biases.

Conclusions

The majority of IBD studies engaged patients in an open-ended format and were engaged in study design, particularly in developing study materials. Authors recommend continuous involvement of patients throughout the research process to address their research priorities.

Funding Agencies

None

A140 INTEROBSERVER RELIABILITY OF THE PARIS CLASSIFICATION FOR SUPERFICIAL GASTROINTESTINAL TRACT NEOPLASMS: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Background

The Paris classification is an international classification system that characterizes the morphology of superficial gastrointestinal tract neoplasms. Given its ability to predict the risk of submucosal invasion, this tool plays an important role in the preliminary endoscopic assessment of early gastrointestinal neoplastic lesions. Despite its international prevalence, there are no pooled reliability analyses to assess agreement amongst endoscopists using this classification system.

Aims

To systematically review and meta-analyze the interobserver reliability (IOR) of the Paris classification system.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis according to the PRISMA recommendations. A comprehensive literature query was conducted on biomedical databases through December 2020. Studies were included if they quantitively evaluated the IOR of the Paris classification with at least 5 endoscopists participating in the study cohort. Two authors independently screened studies and abstracted data using an a priori designed data collection form. We pooled the results of studies which provided IOR with kappa statistics and confidence intervals using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two study authors using the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) tool.

Results

From an initial 1541 studies, 5 were included in the qualitative review and 3 reported data that allowed for a quantitative analysis of the primary outcome, representing a total of 28 endoscopists. All three of these studies were high quality. The IOR for the Paris classification amongst all endoscopists was 0.541 (95% CI, 0.466–0.617). There was no significant improvement (p=0.551) in the IOR of the Paris classification system following an educational training intervention (pre-education pooled kappa, 0.498; 95% CI, 0.429–0.567 compared to post-education pooled kappa, 0.530; 95% CI, 0.451–0.608).

Conclusions

Interobserver reliability of the Paris classification is moderate with no significant improvement following educational intervention.

Funding Agencies

None

A32 DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF THE TORONTO UPPER GASTROINTESTINAL CLEANING SCORE

Background

High quality esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) depends on the ability to appropriately visualize upper gastrointestinal (GI) mucosa pathology. Evaluation can be limited by the presence of mucus, foam, bubbles and solid materials. Currently, there is no standardized method to assess mucosal visualization for use in clinical or research settings.

Aims

To develop and establish the content validity of the Toronto Upper Gastrointestinal Cleaning Score (TUGCS) and evaluate its interrater reliability.

Methods

An international panel of endoscopy experts rated potential items and their associated anchors for importance as indicators of adequacy of mucosal visualization during EGD. The survey utilized a Likert scale (1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)). The Delphi process was repeated until consensus was reached. Consensus was defined priori as ≥80% of experts in a given round scoring ≥4 on all survey items. To assess content validity, 48 EGD procedures were evaluated in real-time by two endoscopist reviewers using the TUGCS at a single institution. The interrater agreement between assessments was calculated for TUGCS total scores using intraclass correlation coefficient, one-way random effects model (ICC 1,1).

Results

Fourteen experts agreed to be part of the Delphi panel. An anatomical framework representing the upper GI mucosa and anchors for each mucosal portion representing various levels of visibility was generated through systematic review. Three survey rounds, with response rates of 100%, 100% and 71% respectively, achieved consensus. The final TUGCS includes four anatomical areas (fundus, body, antrum, duodenum) and mucosal visualization anchors ranging from 0 to 3 (Figure 1). TUGCS was used to assess foregut cleaning in 48 procedures (Table 1). The mean TUGCS for staff and trainee were 8.1 (±2.4) and 8.1 (±2.6), respectively. The ICC was 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.62–0.88) indicating good reliability.

Conclusions

We developed and generated content validity evidence for the TUGCS through rigorous Delphi methodology, reflective of practice across different centres. Planned as future research is a video survey distributed to endoscopists internationally to further validate the TUGCS to create a tool that may be used to judge mucosal visualization for EGD in research and clinical settings.

Funding Agencies

None

A25 CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF GI ENDOSCOPY CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC

Background

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are integral during a pandemic, offering guidance to clinicians through uncertainty. Existing literature has established that the need for rapid publication of CPGs during previous infectious disease outbreaks resulted in less rigorous guidelines. CPGs were rapidly developed since the onset of the pandemic in December 2019, providing guidance in gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy, an area where COVID-19 may pose risk of transmission.

Aims

To evaluate the quality of GI endoscopy guidelines developed during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare these with (a) endoscopy CPGs developed prior to the pandemic; (b) CPGs for other endoscopic topics unrelated to COVID-19; and, (c) non-endoscopic CPGs published during the pandemic.

Methods

We systematically searched Medline, Embase and Scopus for CPGs published by GI societies from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020. A grey literature search was conducted. Two authors screened full-texts. In this interim analysis, CPGs were grouped based on publication year: before 2020, or 2020. Endoscopy CPGs published in 2020 were categorized as COVID or non-COVID related. Two authors independently assessed the CPGs using the AGREE II tool, consisting of six domains for evaluating guidelines. A domain score of 60 was set as a threshold to indicate good quality.

Results

There were 70 endoscopy guidelines and 27 CPGs focused on other GI topics. The mean overall scores were 69% (±12%) for endoscopy CPGs published before 2020 (n=28), and 51% (±23%) for CPGs published in 2020 (n=42). For individual AGREE II domains, mean scores for pre-2020 CPGs ranged from 33.11 (±17.39) in Applicability to 81.55 (±10.37) in Clarity of Presentation. For CPGs published during COVID-19, mean domain scores ranged from 34.18 (±10.52) in Applicability to 75.26 (±13.85) in Clarity of Presentation. 21 of 42 CPGs published in 2020 were related to COVID. Mean overall scores were 35% (±20%) for COVID-related CPGs and 67% (±13%) for non-COVID-19 CPGs. For COVID-19 CPGs, scores ranged from 27.88 (±20.31) in Rigour of Development to 69.58 (±10.81) in Scope and Purpose. For non-COVID CPGs, the scores ranged from 37.30 (±8.93) in Applicability to 84.52 (±5.93) in Clarity of Presentation.

Conclusions

The difference in overall scores between COVID-19 endoscopy CPGs and non-COVID endoscopy CPGs may suggest that the urgency to disseminate COVID-19 information decreased CPG quality or completeness of reporting. This interim analysis is limited by the lack of distinction between peer-reviewed CPGs and non-peer reviewed recommendations. Given the importance of CPGs in clinical decision making, it is important to ensure that the rapid development of guidelines does not compromise quality and rigour.

Funding Agencies

None

A comparison of intravenous methylprednisolone and hydrocortisone for the treatment of acute inflammatory bowel disease

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Despite widespread recommendations and use of intravenous corticosteroids (IVCS) for the treatment of acute flares of ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease, limited evidence exists comparing outcomes of the two most common regimens, intravenous methylprednisolone (IVMP) and intravenous hydrocortisone (IVHC). IVHC has stronger mineralocorticoid effects compared with IVMP and may cause higher rates of hypokalemia. We aimed to determine differences in clinical outcomes including requirement for inpatient rescue therapy, bowel resection, and rates of hypokalemia.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter cohort study of all adult patients admitted with an acute flare of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) to the three tertiary hospitals in Auckland, New Zealand, where the protocol at each institution is either IVMP 60 mg daily or IVHC 100 mg four times daily. All patients requiring IVCS between 20 June 2016 and 30 June 2018 were included. The IVCS protocol was then changed at one hospital, where further data were collected for a further 12 months from 30 January 2019 until 30 December 2019.

RESULTS

There were 359 patients, including 129 (35.9%) patients receiving IVMP and 230 (64.1%) patients receiving IVHC. IVMP treatment was associated with a greater requirement for rescue therapy than IVHC (36.4% vs 19.6%, P = 0.001; odds ratio [OR] = 2.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.64-4.75, P < 0.001), but also reduced rates of hypokalemia (55.8% vs 67.0%, P = 0.04; OR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.81, P = 0.005). There was no difference between treatment groups for the median length of admission (5 days, interquartile range [IQR] 3-8), median duration of IVCS treatment (3 days, IQR 2-5), or bowel resection within 30 days of admission (12.4% vs 11.7%; OR = 1.04).

CONCLUSION

For the treatment of an acute flare of IBD, treatment with IVMP results in significantly more requirement for inpatient rescue biologic or cyclosporin. In addition, it causes statistically significant less hypokalemia than IVHC, although in practice differences are negligible.

The employment gap: the relationship between medical student career choices and the future needs of the New Zealand medical workforce

AIMS

To determine the career decision intentions of graduating doctors, and the relationship between these intentions and the predicted medical workforce needs in New Zealand in 10 years' time.

METHODS

A workforce forecasting model developed by the Ministry of Health (MOH) has been used to predict the proportion of doctors required in each medical specialty in 2028 in New Zealand. The future work intentions of recently graduated doctors at the Universities of Auckland and Otago were collected from the Medical Student Outcomes Data (MSOD), and compared with these predicted needs.

RESULTS

Between 2013 and 2017, 2,292 doctors graduated in New Zealand, of whom 1,583 completed the MSOD preferences section (response rate 69%). Of these only 50.1% had decided on a future medical specialty. The most popular were surgical specialties (26.2%), general practice (20.7%), and internal medicine (11.0%). Compared to the MOH workforce forecast model there appears to be insufficient interest in general practice at the time of graduation.

CONCLUSIONS

To shape the medical workforce to meet forecast needs, multiple stakeholders will need to collaborate, with a special focus on the early postgraduate years, as many doctors have yet to decide on specialisation.