Validation study of the Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Establishing the reliability and validity of a Virtual Reality Upper Gastrointestinal simulator using a novel video-endoscopic assessment technique. Moorthy.
Advertisements

Bile Reflux and Bilitec System
Measurement, Evaluation, Assessment and Statistics
Assessment Module Layout
A Blended Curriculum for Bermuda Public Primary Schools
The Profile of Professional Growth
Management of Barrett ’ s Esophagus Joint Hospital Surgical Grand Ground 17 th July 2010 Dr KS Chan Queen Elizabeth Hospital.
Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal-Cancer Screening NEJM April 3, 2014 Vol 3 Imperiale, T.F. et al Presented by Melissa Spera, MD.
The Profile of Professional Growth
ML ALGORITHMS. Algorithm Types Classification (supervised) Given -> A set of classified examples “instances” Produce -> A way of classifying new examples.
WEEK 1 – TOPIC 1 OVERVIEW OF ASSESSMENT: CONTEXT, ISSUES AND TRENDS 1.
Certificate III Co-Ordinator: Fran Hughes – Ext 8625 Stage 1 Co-Ordinator: Gael Stewart - Ext 8720.
Diaddddddd122223d Diagnosis of esophagial cancer (Artesh medical university) Dr Saidi.
Using technology in assessment and peer feedback An alternative approach.
Los Angeles Classification: Development, validation and accumulated experience John Dent Chair, International Working Group for the Classification of.
Renewing your National Board Certification.  What made you choose National Board Certification the first time?  How has your professional journey continued.
An assessment tool for dactylitis Philip Helliwell.
Radiofrequency Ablation for Barrett’s Esophagus with HGD Gregory G. Ginsberg, M.D. Professor of Medicine University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
1 Inter-observer Agreement of The Response To Therapy AssessmentInter-observer Agreement of The Response To Therapy Assessment in Advanced Lung Cancer.
Advancing Assessment Literacy Setting the Stage II: Understanding Data Purposes & Uses.
Interpersonal Skills 4 detailed studies Health Psychology.
TEKS (6.10) Probability and statistics. The student uses statistical representations to analyze data. The student is expected to: (B) identify mean (using.
Advanced Research Methods Unit 3 Reliability and Validity.
Chapter 2: Getting to Know Your Data
A brief introduction to

RELIABILITY OF DISEASE CLASSIFICATION Nigel Paneth.
Reliability EDUC 307. Reliability  How consistent is our measurement?  the reliability of assessments tells the consistency of observations.  Two or.
1 Collecting and Interpreting Quantitative Data Deborah K. van Alphen and Robert W. Lingard California State University, Northridge.
Endoluminal Treatment of Barrett’s and Early Cancer Brant K. Oelschlager, MD University of Washington.
Overview of the handbook Chapter 5: Levee inspection, assessment and risk attribution.
Quality of Colonoscopy Using an endoscopic database to measure and improve quality AAPCE Memphis- November 5, 2011 David Lieberman MD Chief, Division of.
Case 1 현 O 훈 (M/34). Diagnosis : Stomach, distal gastrectomy: Signet ring cell carcinoma 1) Location: Angle 2) Tumor gross type: Early.
Case 1. Diagnosis : Stomach, resection margin, proximal, FS-1, biopsy: No tumor Stomach, resection margin, distal, FS-2, biopsy: Adenocarcinoma Lymph.
A2 Agreement Trial ICT November Agenda  GCE ICT – Entries and Transitional Arrangements  Outcomes and Issues  10.45Coffee  11.15Principal.
Early Versus Delayed Feeding After Placement of a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy: A Meta-Analysis Matthew L. Bechtold, M.D., Michelle L. Matteson,
GI conference Case 3 Stomach and liver F/69 S
A2 Agreement Trial ICT November Key Points from Moderation  Majority of centres applied the assessment criteria successfully  Tasks selected and.
A Head-to-Head Comparison of the Sport Concussion Assessment Tool 2 (SCAT2) and the Military Acute Concussion Evaluation (MACE) 1 Department of Neurosciences.
Using a Writing Process to Improve Writing Skills Video Clip #1 Dance Part 1 Technology for Teaching Adult Education.
Barrett Esophagus 2008 년도 2 학기 의학과 석. 박사 공통과목 위장관의 외과병리.
Minesh Mehta, PGY-4 University of Louisville Department of Gastroenterology BARRETT’S ESOPHAGUS.
Empirical Evaluation of Web Survey Software Tools: Powerful or Friendly? Vasja Vehovar, Nejc Berzelak, Katja Lozar Manfreda, Tina Horvat University of.
Meta-analysis Overview
Clinical process indicators
The Development and Validation of an Endoscopic Grading System for Barrett’s Esophagus The Prague C & M Criteria Gastroenterology 2006;131:1392~1399 This.
The Prevalence of and Risk Factors for Barrett Esophagus in a Korean Population - A Nationwide Multicenter Prospective Study - J Clin Gastroenterol 2009.
Oesophago–Gastric Cancer
The Profile of Professional Growth
Nicole Michael, BA John Smith, MD Tricia St. Hilaire, MPH
Microsoft Excel Intermediate Skills
Summary of Evidence/Reason for Referral
Volume 133, Issue 1, Pages (July 2007)
Evidence Based Practice 3
Barrett's esophagus: diagnosis and management
Peter J Kahrilas, MD, John E Pandolfino, MD 
Volume 131, Issue 5, Pages (November 2006)
Figure 4 Examples of reflux episodes on pH and pH-impedance monitoring
Clinical Event Classification: Strategies and Practices
Figure 2 Metrics from oesophageal high-resolution
Barrett's esophagus: diagnosis and management
Acetic-acid chromoendoscopy for Barrett's esophagus: the “pros”
Volume 154, Issue 5, Pages (April 2018)
Volume 117, Issue 1, Pages (July 1999)
Variable Reliability of Endoscopic Findings With White-Light and Narrow-Band Imaging for Patients With Suspected Eosinophilic Esophagitis  Anne F. Peery,
Unit 4 - A06 – Review Grade Criteria To get a c
Ass. Prof. Dr. Mogeeb Mosleh
Grants Giving Scott Druery
Volume 156, Issue 5, Pages e3 (April 2019)
The descending gastric fundus in endoscopic sleeve gastroplasty: implications for procedural technique and adverse events  Theodore W. James, MD, Christopher.
Presentation transcript:

Validation study of the Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria Prateek Sharma, M.D. Kansas City, USA Chairman of the Barrett’s Oesophagus Working Subgroup of the International Working Group for the Classification of Oesophagitis

The Development and Validation of an Endoscopic Grading System for Barrett’s Esophagus: The Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria The aim of this exercise was to develop and validate explicit, consensus-driven criteria for the endoscopic diagnosis and grading of Barrett’s Esophagus An international working group agreed on criteria and developed materials which included video endoscopic recordings gathered in a standardized manner The criteria included assessment of the Circumferential (C) and Maximum (M) extent of the endoscopically visualized Barrett’s segment and other endoscopic landmarks Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al., Gastroenterology 2006

Aims of the validation study of the Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria To determine inter-observer agreement on: Circumferential extent of Barrett’s Maximum extent of Barrett’s Location, by cm of endoscope insertion of: gastro-esophageal junction diaphragmatic hiatus

Validation study materials (1) Best possible image quality video-endoscopic recordings were made during 1 cm stepwise withdrawals of the endoscope from the upper stomach to above the maximum extent of endoscopic columnar metaplasia Every attempt was made to display landmarks and other pertinent findings at each cm withdrawal station The depth of endoscope insertion in cm from the incisors was documented during withdrawals and edited onto the video clips beside the endoscopic image

Validation study materials (2) The video clip collection was reviewed by the Working Subgroup and the 29 most suitable clips were selected for scoring in the validation study The selected video clips showed a full spectrum of different lengths and findings in relation to esophageal columnar metaplasia The Working Subgroup developed detailed instructions and a standard score sheet for each video clip

Validation study processes The numerically coded selected video clips arranged in random order, the instructions for evaluation, and the score sheets were sent on a DVD to 29 assessors in 14 countries The selected assessors all had a strong interest in Barrett’s Esophagus Assessors returned score sheets on each video clip to a central data collection point for entry into a database and analysis

Contributing assessors R. Ackroyd U.K A. Barkun Canada T. Clarke Australia G. Costamagna Italy A. Edebo Sweden R. Enns Canada G. Falk USA P. Fockens Netherlands J. Hatlebakk Norway R. Holloway Australia G. Holtmann Australia P. Katelaris Australia A. Kruse Denmark N. Marcon Canada G. May Canada S. Nandurkar Australia H. Neuhaus Germany M-A. Ortner Switzerland G. Overholt USA U. Peitz Germany J. Regula Poland J-F. Rey France R. Sampliner USA M. Schoeman Australia S. Spechler USA N.B. Vakil USA J.L. Van Laetherm Belgium K. Wang USA H. Worth Boyce USA

Criteria for assessing the validation study video clips For all landmarks, depth of insertion of endoscope was recorded, at the point where the feature was located Assessors were instructed to locate the gastro-esophageal junction by either the most proximal position of the gastric folds or by the circumferential ring or pinch Similarly, the assessors also recorded the position of the diaphragmatic hiatus and the circumferential and maximum extents of esophageal columnar metaplasia

Validation study data analysis Inter-observer agreement was evaluated with the: Reliability coefficient: a measure of agreement when there are more than 2 observers which compensates for agreement by chance Reliability coefficient <0.4 Poor 0.4-0.75 Fair/Good >0.75 Excellent

Results - the Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria validation study 22 assessors completed all ‘C’ and ‘M’ values for all 29 video clips These data were used for analysis Reliability coefficient values for both ‘C’ and ‘M’ were in the excellent range

Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria: Results Reliability coefficient values for ‘C’ extent 0.94 (95% CI: 0.91-0.97) ‘M’ extent 0.93 (95% CI: 0.89-0.96) Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al., Gastroenterology 2006

Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria: Results Reliability coefficient values for Proximal margin of gastric folds 0.88 Pinch at the distal esophagus 0.78 Diaphragmatic hiatus 0.85 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al., Gastroenterology 2006

Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria: Results Kappa values for Barrett’s any length 0.49 Barrett’s length < 1cm 0.21 Barrett’s length > 1cm 0.72 Sharma P, Dent J, Armstrong D et al., Gastroenterology 2006

Summary - Validation of the Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria The Prague Barrett’s C&M Criteria represent a major advance in the endoscopic recognition and grading of Barrett’s Esophagus The reliability of these criteria is excellent Endoscopic recognition of lengths of Barrett’s <1 cm has very low reliability