A80 CANADIAN NEUROGASTROENTEROLOGY NETWORK (CNN) SURVEY ON PH/MOTILITY TESTING IN CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Anecdotal reports suggest that access to pH/motility testing is problematic in Canada, but to date there is little data documenting this. Aims To assess the volume and accessibility of motility lab testing in Canada. Methods The CNN developed a questionnaire directed at the scope, volume and accessibility of pH/motility testing in Canadian labs. Fifty-three labs were identified using lists provided by companies that supply pH/motility recording equipment in Canada. Of these, 12 labs were excluded (10 had incorrect or absent contact information, 1 had recently closed and 1 had just opened). Questionnaires were sent in early 2020 to the remaining 41 labs, and respondents were asked to use data from their last fiscal year pre-pandemic. Results 26 completed questionnaires were returned (i.e., 63% response rate, but representing ~ 51% of active labs): 23 adult units (7 community, 15 academic and 1 private) and 3 academic pediatric units. Of the adult units, 6 performed studies in children <12 yrs old. All 3 pediatric units provided both esophageal and anorectal high-resolution manometry (HRM) and pH/Impedance recording, with wait times of < 3 months. All 23 adult labs provided esophageal HRM, but just 50% performed anorectal manometry and only 3 anorectal manometry with biofeedback. Ambulatory pH/Impedance was performed in all but 1 adult unit. 15 of 23 adult centres reported access to colon transit studies and only one performed colonic manometry. No units performed antroduodenal manometry. Five units offered Bravo wireless pH recording and 4 performed ENDOFLIP. In adult units, the median number of procedures per year were as follows: esophageal HRMs - 278 (range: 50–1140); pH/impedance - 225 (range: 40–634); anorectal manometry - 90 (range: 10–450). Corresponding median wait times in months were as follows: esophageal HRM - 4 (range: 0.5–14); pH/Impedance - 4.5 (range: 0.5–14); anorectal manometry - 4.6 (range: 2–9). Only 6 of the 23 adult units met recommended wait time targets of <2 months. Testing was performed by a nurse in ~ 80% of centres, while testing was done by technicians in 2 units and physicians in 3 units. 8 units accepted referrals from primary care physicians, whereas the remainder only accepted specialist referrals. 50% screened referrals for appropriateness and restricted access accordingly. Conclusions The scope of motility and pH testing across Canada is variable, with lower GI testing lacking in many regions. Wait times vary significantly across labs and the majority of centres exceed recommended limits of 2 months. The reasons underlying the identified limitations to pH/motility testing access warrant further study. Funding Agencies None
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».