MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231450776 · doi:10.1016/s0016-5107(01)80506-x

Musculoskeletal injuries among ERCP endoscopists: A canadian survey

2001· article· en· W4231450776 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Drew Schembre, Richard A. Kozarek, Virginia Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueGastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMedical Device Sterilization and Disinfection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGeneral surgeryPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Repair costs for endoscopes range from $3 to $23 per procedure. Echoendoscopes are more complex and more expensive than standard endoscopes. The frequency with which EUS equipment fails, the costs associated with these failures and factors that may contribute to echoendoscope damage have not been defined. Methods: Surveys were sent to 190 endosonographers identified through the ASGE subcommittee on EUS regarding 15 aspects of their EUS practice and instances of echoendoscope failure and repair over the last 12 months. Follow-up faxes and e-mails were sent to encourage participation. Results: Responses were obtained from 59 different medical centers (28%). Reasons for failure: leak 33, mechanical 25, electronic 21, cable 8, optics 6, and other 8. Average annual (AA) # of EUS procedures performed 251 63 (10-1100). AA # of EUS repairs/center 4 1.1 (0-19). AA cost of EUS repairs/center $11,185 3,980 (0-50,000). Average cost per repair $3,273 1,142 (0-17,900). Average repair cost per procedure $68 26. Number of procedures at which repair costs equal purchase price 750. Over 12 months, equipment failure resulted in misdiaguosis in at least one case in 9% (5/55) of centers and resulted in at least one procedure cancellation in 71% (39/55), with a quarter reporting -> 6 cancelled cases. No patient was injured by an echoendoscope failure. Almost every center used the manufacturer for major repairs (52/56) and 77% (38/50) were satisfied with the majority of repairs. "Loaner" echoendoscopes were reported available only about half the time. Subset analysis revealed an inverse relationship between per procedure repair cost and number of procedures, with the highest costs occurring in centers with 2 echoendoscopes. The presence of fellows was associated with lower per-procedure costs. However, fellows were disproportionately employed at high-volume centers. Failures were reported in all available echoendoscopes. No trends were interpretable based on brand, model, or cleaning techniques. Although 91% (50/55) of centers owned their equipment, 43% (24/56) were unaware of their repair costs. Conclusions: EUS equipment failures are common, expensive and represent higher per-procedure costs than for other endoscopes. High-volume centers appear to spend less per procedure for repairs than low-and middle-volume centers. Reimbursement formulas should take into account the significant cost of repairing EUS instruments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastrointestinal EndoscopySame topicMedical Device Sterilization and DisinfectionFrench-language works237,207