Gastrointest Endosc. 2010 Aug;72(2):227-35. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2010.01.071. Epub 2010 May 26.
The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, by using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to personal protection equipment by using the key words "personal protection equipment" (exp Protective Clothing/ or exp Protective Devices/ or exp Masks/ or exp Occupational Exposure/'') "infection control" paired with "Endoscopy." For the radiation section, the following key words were used: "radiation and endoscopy," "radiation and ERCP," and "radiation safety." For the ergonomics section, the following key words were used: "ergonomics of endoscopy," "endoscopist injury," "medical ergonomics," "endoscopy and musculoskeletal strain," "musculoskeletal injury and endoscopists," "occupational diseases and endoscopy," "cumulative trauma disorder and endoscopy," "repetitive strain injury and endoscopy." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.
美国胃肠内镜学会(ASGE)技术委员会对现有、新出现或新兴的内镜技术进行评估,这些技术对胃肠内镜实践有影响。采用循证医学方法,通过 MEDLINE 文献检索确定与该主题相关的临床研究,并通过 MAUDE(美国食品和药物管理局设备和放射健康中心)数据库检索确定给定技术的报告并发症。这两者都通过访问 PubMed 的“相关文章”功能以及仔细审查已确定研究中引用的相关参考文献来补充。强调进行对照临床试验,但在许多情况下,缺乏随机对照试验的数据。在这种情况下,使用大型病例系列、初步临床研究和专家意见。技术数据来自传统和基于 Web 的出版物、专有的出版物以及与相关供应商的非正式交流。技术状况评估报告由 ASGE 技术委员会的 1 或 2 名成员起草,由委员会全体成员审查和编辑,并由 ASGE 理事会批准。当需要财务指导时,提供出版时最新的编码数据和标价。对于本次审查,通过 MEDLINE 数据库在 2009 年 8 月前搜索了与个人防护设备相关的文章,使用的关键词是“个人防护设备”(扩展 Protective Clothing/或扩展 Protective Devices/或扩展 Masks/或扩展 Occupational Exposure/')“感染控制”与“内镜”配对。对于辐射部分,使用了以下关键词:“辐射与内镜”、“辐射与 ERCP”和“辐射安全”。对于人体工程学部分,使用了以下关键词:“内镜人体工程学”、“内镜医师损伤”、“医疗人体工程学”、“内镜与肌肉骨骼劳损”、“肌肉骨骼损伤与内镜医师”、“职业疾病与内镜”、“累积性创伤障碍与内镜”、“重复性劳损与内镜”。技术状况评估报告是为教育和信息目的提供的科学审查。技术状况评估报告不是规则,不应被解释为建立护理的法定标准,也不应被解释为鼓励、提倡、要求或不鼓励任何特定的治疗或此类治疗的支付。