Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Observer variability in upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

D Cantor, R Midgley, T Imperato

    Acta Gastroenterologica Latinoamericana
    |January 1, 1982
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    The proportion of tumor-stroma as a strong prognosticator for stage II and III colon cancer patients: validation in the VICTOR trial.

    Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology·2012
    Same author

    TERC polymorphisms are associated both with susceptibility to colorectal cancer and with longer telomeres.

    Gut·2011
    Same author

    A phase II trial of lomeguatrib and temozolomide in metastatic colorectal cancer.

    British journal of cancer·2008
    Same author

    A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of indinavir in patients with ALS.

    Neurology·2005
    Same author

    Systemic treatment of colorectal cancer.

    European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990)·2002
    Same author

    Immunotherapy for colorectal cancer: a challenge to clinical trial design.

    The Lancet. Oncology·2002
    Same journal

    [Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the Pancreas: Diagnosis and Surgical Management in a Young Patient].

    Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana·2026
    Same journal

    Small Intestinal Bacterial Overgrowth and Intestinal Methanogen Overgrowth: Are They Overdiagnosed?

    Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana·2026
    Same journal

    Pancreatic Atypical Neurofibromatous Neoplasm with Uncertain Biological Potential (ANNUBP) Mimicking a Solid Pseudopapillary Tumor Pancreatic ANNUBP.

    Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana·2026
    Same journal

    [Prevalence of Anxiety and Depression in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Association with Disease Activity and its Impact on Quality of Life].

    Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana·2026
    Same journal

    Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana·2026
    Same journal

    [Use of Los Angeles Classification in Erosive Esophagitis: analysis of inter-observer and intra-observer agreement].

    Acta gastroenterologica Latinoamericana·2026
    See all related articles

    Endoscopist experience significantly impacts diagnostic accuracy, with fewer discrepancies noted between experienced staff endoscopists compared to less experienced fellows. This highlights the importance of extensive training in reducing observer variation during gastrointestinal endoscopy.

    Area of Science:

    • Gastroenterology
    • Medical Imaging
    • Diagnostic Endoscopy

    Background:

    • Observer variation is a known challenge in interpreting endoscopic findings.
    • Assessing discrepancies in the esophagus, stomach, and duodenum is crucial for accurate diagnosis.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To analyze observer variation among endoscopists.
    • To compare diagnostic discrepancies based on endoscopist experience level.

    Main Methods:

    • Four endoscopists (two staff, two fellows) evaluated 104 patient cases.
    • Findings were recorded immediately, and discrepancies classified as 'Major' or 'Minor'.
    • Analysis included subgroup comparisons (staff vs. fellow, staff vs. staff, fellow vs. fellow).

    Main Results:

    Related Experiment Videos

    • Minor discrepancies averaged 2.18 +/- 1.32 per case; Major discrepancies averaged 1.19 +/- 1.08.
    • Significantly fewer minor and major discrepancies occurred between staff endoscopists compared to fellow endoscopists (p<0.01 and p<0.005).
    • Common discrepancies involved esophagitis, hiatal hernia, gastritis, gastric ulcer, erosions, and duodenal mucosal lesions.

    Conclusions:

    • Endoscopist experience level is a significant factor influencing diagnostic accuracy.
    • Experienced endoscopists demonstrate reduced observer variation, leading to more consistent interpretations.
    • Standardizing training and experience may improve diagnostic reliability in gastrointestinal endoscopy.