Can we improve the detection rate and interobserver agreement in capsule endoscopy?

BACKGROUND Data about strategies for improving the diagnostic ability of capsule endoscopy readers are lacking. AIM (1) To evaluate the detection rate and the interobserver agreement among readers with different experience; (2) to verify the impact of a specific training (hands-on training plus expert tutorial) on these parameters. METHODS 17 readers reviewed 12 videos twice; between the two readings they underwent the training. The identified small bowel findings were described by a simplified version of Structured Terminology and classifies as clinically significant/non-significant. Findings identified by the readers were compared with those identified by three experts (Reference Standard). RESULTS The Reference Standard identified 26 clinically significant findings. The mean detection rate of overall readers for significant findings was low (about 50%) and did not change after the training (46.2% and 46.4%, respectively). There was no difference in the detection rate among readers with different experience. The interobserver agreement with the Reference Standard in describing significant findings was moderate (k = 0.44; CI95%: 0.39-0.50) and did not change after the training (k = 0.44; CI95%: 0.38-0.49) or stratifying readers according to their experience. CONCLUSIONS Both the interobserver agreement and the detection rate of significant findings are low, regardless of the readers' experience. Our training did not significantly increase the performance of readers with different experience.

[1]  G. Gay,et al.  Structured terminology for capsule endoscopy: results of retrospective testing and validation in 766 small-bowel investigations. , 2005, Endoscopy.

[2]  Z. Liao,et al.  Indications and detection, completion, and retention rates of small-bowel capsule endoscopy: a systematic review. , 2010, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[3]  Judy Yee,et al.  Can radiologist training and testing ensure high performance in CT colonography? Lessons From the National CT Colonography Trial. , 2010, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[4]  Dimitrios K. Iakovidis,et al.  Reduction of capsule endoscopy reading times by unsupervised image mining , 2010, Comput. Medical Imaging Graph..

[5]  A. Ersbøll,et al.  [Intra- and interobserver variation in capsule endoscopy reviews]. , 2009, Ugeskrift for laeger.

[6]  D. Wingate.  Surgery of the liver , 1990 .

[7]  W. Leung,et al.  Inter-observer variations on interpretation of capsule endoscopies , 2006, European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[8]  Paul Bassett,et al.  Computer-aided learning in capsule endoscopy leads to improvement in lesion recognition ability. , 2009, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[9]  Adam Dubrowski,et al.  Surgical skill acquisition with self-directed practice using computer-based video training. , 2007, American journal of surgery.

[10]  Tao Gan,et al.  A feasibility trial of computer-aided diagnosis for enteric lesions in capsule endoscopy. , 2008, World journal of gastroenterology.

[11]  Jacob Cohen.  A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[12]  D. Chang,et al.  Inter-observer agreement on the interpretation of capsule endoscopy findings based on capsule endoscopy structured terminology: A multicenter study by the Korean Gut Image Study Group , 2010, Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology.

[13]  B. Petersen,et al.  ASGE Technology Status Evaluation Report: wireless capsule endoscopy. , 2006, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[14]  R. Sidhu,et al.  Is formal training necessary for capsule endoscopy? The largest gastroenterology trainee study with controls. , 2008, Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver.

[15]  J. Yee,et al.  ACRIN CT colonography trial: does reader's preference for primary two-dimensional versus primary three-dimensional interpretation affect performance? , 2011, Radiology.

[16]  R. Weersma,et al.  Can we reduce capsule endoscopy reading times? , 2009, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[17]  Ananya Das,et al.  American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) Institute medical position statement on obscure gastrointestinal bleeding. , 2007, Gastroenterology.

[18]  D. Faigel,et al.  ASGE guideline: guidelines for credentialing and granting privileges for capsule endoscopy. , 2005, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[19]  C. Gostout,et al.  A prospective comparison of capsule endoscopy and push enteroscopy in patients with GI bleeding of obscure origin. , 2004, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[20]  Emanuele Rondonotti,et al.  Interobserver agreement in describing video capsule endoscopy findings: a multicentre prospective study. , 2011, Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver.

[21]  Michelle A. Anderson,et al.  The role of endoscopy in the management of obscure GI bleeding. , 2010, Gastrointestinal endoscopy.

[22]  G. Gay,et al.  Capsule endoscopy structured terminology (CEST): proposal of a standardized and structured terminology for reporting capsule endoscopy procedures. , 2005, Endoscopy.

[23]  C. Girelli,et al.  Small bowel capsule endoscopy in clinical practice: a multicenter 7-year survey , 2010, European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[24]  Kevin W Eva,et al.  Diagnostic error in medical education: where wrongs can make rights , 2009, Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice.