Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background And Aim: We aimed to develop and validate a simple capsule endoscopy (CE) training assessment tool, the Capsule Endoscopy Training Assessment (CETA), and prospectively use it to analyze the learning progression achieved by participants in our CE training program.
Methods: Over a 3-year period, all participants in our CE training program completed pre-training and post-training CETA, ranging between 0% and 100%, and encompassing theoretical questions and interpretation of segmented CE videos. We compared the mean differences in overall, theoretical, and practical pre-training and post-training CETA, and assessed the influence of previous endoscopic experience (upper gastrointestinal endoscopy [UGE], colonoscopy, device-assisted enteroscopy [DAE] and CE) using generalized linear models.
Results: Fifty-seven participants were included. After training, there was a significant increase in participants' overall (mean difference, 26.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 20.70 to 31.83), theoretical (mean difference, 27.2; 95% CI, 19.81 to 34.57), and practical (mean difference, 25.9; 95% CI, 20.09 to 31.63) CETA components. Compared to those without experience, participants with previous endoscopic experience demonstrated a smaller increase in overall CETA after training (UGE, rate ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.91; colonoscopy (rate ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; DAE (rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.97; CE, rate ratio, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72 to 0.92, respectively).
Conclusion: CETA is a valid and useful tool in assessing the learning progression achieved by participants following the CE training program. We demonstrated a significant improvement in participants' CETA after training, being the least experienced participants in endoscopic procedures who benefited the most from CE training.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgh.16823 | DOI Listing |