Information bias in endoscopic assessment

被引:24
作者
Bytzer, Peter [1 ]
机构
[1] Glostrup Univ Hosp, Dept Med Gastroenterol, DK-2600 Glostrup, Denmark
关键词
D O I
10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00911.x
中图分类号
R57 [消化系及腹部疾病];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: Endoscopic assessment is observer dependent and patient history may influence the interpretation of images. This study assessed the impact of knowledge bias in a large sample of endoscopists. Design: The same 2-minute video sequence of a normal gastroscopy was shown twice as part of a diagnostic quiz. The 129 endoscopists were unaware that they participated in a validation experiment. Two fictional patient histories accompanied the videos. The first case suggested reflux-like symptoms. The second case described epigastric pain in an elderly woman. Endoscopists gave diagnoses in free writing. The diagnostic suggestions were categorized into five classes: (a) normal findings; (b) reflux-related findings (e.g., erosions, hiatal hernia, Barrett's metaplasia); (c) peptic ulcer or atrophic gastritis; (d) other specified pathology; (e) no diagnostic suggestion. Results: Only 30/129 (23%) endoscopists gave the same diagnosis for the two identical video cases. The patient history had a major impact on the diagnostic suggestions: In case 1 (reflux symptoms) 54/129 (42%) of the diagnoses were related to reflux disease compared with only six diagnoses of ulcer or atrophic gastritis (P < 0.0001). In case 2 (epigastric pain) 56 endoscopists (43%) diagnosed ulcer or atrophic gastritis whereas only 16 (12%) suggested reflux-related findings (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: Endoscopists are biased by the patient history when they interpret endoscopic images.
引用
收藏
页码:1585 / 1587
页数:3
相关论文
共 8 条
[1]   The endoscopic assessment of esophagitis: A progress report on observer agreement [J].
Armstrong, D ;
Bennett, JR ;
Blum, AL ;
Dent, J ;
deDombal, FT ;
Galmiche, JP ;
Lundell, L ;
Margulies, M ;
Richter, JE ;
Spechler, SJ ;
Tytgat, GNJ ;
Wallin, L .
GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1996, 111 (01) :85-92
[2]   INTEROBSERVER VARIATION IN THE ENDOSCOPIC DIAGNOSIS OF REFLUX ESOPHAGITIS [J].
BYTZER, P ;
HAVELUND, T ;
HANSEN, JM .
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 1993, 28 (02) :119-125
[3]  
GJORUP T, 1985, SCAND J GASTROENTERO, V20, P554
[4]  
GJORUP T, 1984, METHOD INFORM MED, V23, P96
[5]   EFFECT OF KNOWLEDGE OF SERUM ENZYME CONCENTRATIONS ON DOCTORS INTERPRETATION OF ELECTROCARDIOGRAPHIC MANIFESTATIONS IN SUSPECTED ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION [J].
GJORUP, T ;
KELBAEK, H ;
STENBYGARD, L ;
SORENSEN, F ;
GODTFREDSEN, J ;
JENSEN, AM .
BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1986, 292 (6512) :27-27
[6]   You get what you expect?: A critical appraisal of imaging methodology in endosonographic cancer staging [J].
Meining, A ;
Dittler, HJ ;
Wolf, A ;
Lorenz, R ;
Schusdziarra, V ;
Siewert, JR ;
Classen, M ;
Höfler, H ;
Rösch, T .
GUT, 2002, 50 (05) :599-603
[7]   Gastroesophageal endoscopic signs of cirrhosis:: independent diagnostic accuracy, interassociation, and relationship to etiology and hepatic dysfunction [J].
Oberti, F ;
Burtin, P ;
Maïga, M ;
Valsesia, E ;
Pilette, C ;
Calès, P .
GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY, 1998, 48 (02) :148-157
[8]   INTERPRETATION OF PLANTAR REFLEXES - BIASING EFFECT OF OTHER SIGNS AND SYMPTOMS [J].
VANGIJN, J ;
BONKE, B .
JOURNAL OF NEUROLOGY NEUROSURGERY AND PSYCHIATRY, 1977, 40 (08) :787-789