A92 EDUCATIONAL INTERVENTIONS TO IMPROVE ERGONOMIC PERFORMANCE IN GASTROINTESTINAL ENDOSCOPY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Physicians in procedural specialties, such as gastrointestinal endoscopy, are at a high risk of musculoskeletal injuries (MSPI) which can affect physician wellness and productivity. Training in ergonomic principles for endoscopy may help reduce and prevent the incidence of MSPI. Aims The aim of this systematic review was to identify educational interventions using ergonomic strategies that target the reduction of MSPI and/or pain from GI endoscopy. Methods We conducted a systematic search following PRESS guidelines in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for articles published from inception to December 16, 2020. Studies were included if they investigated educational interventions aimed at changing knowledge and/or behaviours related to ergonomics in gastrointestinal endoscopy. After screening and full-text review, we extracted data on the study design, participants, type of training and assessment of primary outcomes. We evaluated study quality with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). A qualitative synthesis of the data was conducted. Results Of the initial 575 records identified in the search, 5 met inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis. We found that most studies (n=4, 90%) were single armed interventional studies that were conducted in simulated and/or clinical settings. The most common types of intervention were didactic sessions and/or videos (n=4, 80%). Other interventions included individualized feedback (n=2, 40%), checklists (n=2, 40%), and simulated training (n=1, 20%). Two (40%) studies used both standardized assessment studies and formal statistical analyses to assess primary outcomes. All included studies reported a benefit of their interventions on their respective dimensions assessed for ergonomics. The mean MERSQI score was 9.7. Conclusions There is emerging literature demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions to improve ergonomic performance in gastrointestinal endoscopy, which is likely to reduce MSPI among endoscopists. Further higher quality research in this field is required to make robust recommendations. Study flow diagram Funding Agencies None
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".