Devlin Shane M, Melmed Gil Y, Irving Peter M, Rubin David T, Kornbluth Asher, Kozuch Patricia L, Raffals Laura E, Velayos Fernando S, Sparrow Miles P, Baidoo Leonard, Bressler Brian, Cheifetz Adam S, Jones Jennifer, Kaplan Gilaad G, Siegel Corey A
*The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; †Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California; ‡Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre, Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospitals, London, United Kingdom; §Department of Medicine, Inflammatory Bowel Disease Center, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; ‖Dr. Henry D. Janowitz Division of Gastroenterology, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York; ¶Jefferson University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; **Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN; ††University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California; ‡‡Department of Gastroenterology, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; §§University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; ‖‖University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; ¶¶Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; ***Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; and †††Inflammatory Bowel Disease Centre, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire.
Inflamm Bowel Dis. 2016 Jun;22(6):1418-24. doi: 10.1097/MIB.0000000000000764.
Consensus on what constitutes a quality colonoscopy report for patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is lacking. We developed a template for quality colonoscopy reporting that can be used broadly by endoscopists.
After a literature review of topics relevant to colonoscopy reporting, members of the Building Research in Inflammatory Bowel Disease Globally (BRIDGe) group and 2 external experts proposed candidate reporting elements. The RAND/University of California, Los Angeles appropriateness method was applied to rate the importance and feasibility of elements for inclusion in colonoscopy reports for patients with IBD. Panelists used the modified Delphi method to anonymously rate the importance and feasibility of candidate elements on a 1-to-9 scale (1-3: not important/feasible, 4-6: moderately important/feasible, 7-9: very important/feasible). Disagreement was assessed using a validated index. The panelists then met in person for discussion followed by a second round of voting. Elements rated a median of 7 or higher on importance after rerating were retained.
One hundred two reporting elements were proposed. A total of 48 elements were retained across the four themes of "disease background," "findings and interventions," "Crohn's disease with an ileocolonic anastomosis," and "pouchoscopy."
A comprehensive list of recommended elements for quality IBD colonoscopy reporting stratified by clinical scenario has been described, using a rigorous and evidence-based approach. These elements can be incorporated into endoscopy reporting software platforms. Standardized endoscopy reporting may improve the quality of care in IBD.
对于炎症性肠病（IBD）患者而言，高质量结肠镜检查报告的构成尚无共识。我们开发了一种高质量结肠镜检查报告模板，可供内镜医师广泛使用。
在对与结肠镜检查报告相关的主题进行文献综述后，全球炎症性肠病研究构建（BRIDGe）小组的成员和2名外部专家提出了候选报告要素。应用兰德/加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校的适宜性方法对纳入IBD患者结肠镜检查报告的要素的重要性和可行性进行评分。小组成员使用改良德尔菲法以1至9分制（1 - 3分：不重要/不可行，4 - 6分：中等重要/可行，7 - 9分：非常重要/可行）对候选要素的重要性和可行性进行匿名评分。使用经过验证的指数评估分歧。然后小组成员亲自开会讨论，随后进行第二轮投票。重新评分后重要性中位数为7分或更高的要素被保留。
共提出102个报告要素。在“疾病背景”“检查结果与干预措施”“回结肠吻合术后克罗恩病”和“储袋镜检查”这四个主题中总共保留了48个要素。
已使用严格且基于证据的方法描述了按临床场景分层的高质量IBD结肠镜检查报告推荐要素的综合列表。这些要素可纳入内镜检查报告软件平台。标准化的内镜检查报告可能会提高IBD的医疗质量。
