Journals / Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology / 2007 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3

Gastrointestinal endoskopi için minimal standart terminoloji’nin bir endoskopik enformasyon sistemi geliştirilerek değerlendirilmesi

Evaluation of the Turkish translation of the minimal standard terminology for digestive endoscopy by development of an endoscopic information system

Pages
157–164
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In accordance with other previous validation studies, the overall usage of Minimal Standard Terminology terms was very high: 85% for examination characteristics, 94% for endoscopic findings and 94% for endoscopic diagnoses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Background/aims: There are very few evaluation studies for the Minimal Standard Terminology for Digestive Endoscopy.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: The system has been used for reporting of all endoscopic examinations. 15,638 valid records were analyzed, including 11,381 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 2,616 colonoscopies, 1,079 rectoscopies and 562 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In accordance with other previous validation studies, the overall usage of Minimal Standard Terminology terms was very high: 85% for examination characteristics, 94% for endoscopic findings and 94% for endoscopic diagnoses.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Terminoloji · Sözcük · kontrollü

Abstract

Background/aims: There are very few evaluation studies for the Minimal Standard Terminology for Digestive Endoscopy. This study aims to evaluate the usage of the Turkish translation of Minimal Standard Terminology by developing an endoscopic information system. Methods: After elicitation of requirements, database modeling and software development were performed. Minimal Standard Terminology driven forms were designed for rapid data entry. The endoscopic report was rapidly created by applying basic Turkish syntax and grammar rules. Entering free text and also editing of final report were possible. After three years of live usage, data analysis was performed and results were evaluated. Results: The system has been used for reporting of all endoscopic examinations. 15,638 valid records were analyzed, including 11,381 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, 2,616 colonoscopies, 1,079 rectoscopies and 562 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies. In accordance with other previous validation studies, the overall usage of Minimal Standard Terminology terms was very high: 85% for examination characteristics, 94% for endoscopic findings and 94% for endoscopic diagnoses. Some new terms, attributes and allowed values were also added for better clinical coverage. Conclusions: Minimal Standard Terminology has been shown to cover a high proportion of routine endoscopy reports. Good user acceptance proves that both the terms and structure of Minimal Standard Terminology were consistent with usual clinical thinking. However, future work on Minimal Standard Terminology is mandatory for better coverage of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies examinations. Technically new software development methodologies have to be sought for lowering cost of development and the maintenance phase. They should also address integration and interoperability of disparate information systems

Özet

Amaç: Gastrointestinal Endoskopi için Minimal Standart Terminoloji ile ilgili az sayıda değerlendirme çalışması bulunmaktadı r. Bu çalışmada amaç Minimal Standart Terminoloji Türkçe tercümesinin bir endoskopik enformasyon sistemi geliştirilerek değerlendirilmesidir. Yöntem: Gereksinim analizi yapı ldıktan sonra veritabanı modellemesi ve yazılım geliştirme işlemleri gerçekleştirildi. Hızlı veri girişi için Minimal Standart Terminoloji tabanlı formlar tasarlandı. Endoskopi raporu daha sonra temel Türkçe imla ve yazım kuralları kullanılarak oluşturuldu. Serbest metin girişi ve son raporun düzenlenmesi mümkündü. Üç yıllık canlı kullanım sonrası veri analizi gerçekleştirilerek sonuçlar değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Sistem tüm endoskopik işlemlerin raporlanması amacıyla kullanıldı. 15,638 geçerli kayıt incelendiğinde 11,381 adet üst gastrointestinal endoskopi, 2,616 kolonoskopi, 1,079 rektoskopi ile 562 endoskopik retrograt kolanjiyopankreatografi tespit edildi. Önceki diğer değerlendirme çalışmalarında olduğu gibi Minimal Standart Terminoloji terimlerinin genel kullanımı oldukça yüksekti: ‹ncelemenin özellikleri %85, endoskopik bulgular %94 ve endoskopik tanılar yine %94 olarak izlendi. Ayrıca daha geniş klinik kullanım amacıyla Minimal Standart Terminoloji’ye bazı yeni terimler, özellikler ve değerler eklendi. Sonuç: Minimal Standart Terminoloji rutin endoskopi raporlarının büyük bir oranını kapsamıştır. Kullanıcıların sistemi iyi kabullenmeleri Minimal Standart Terminoloji terimlerinin ve yapısının genel klinik düşünce ile uyum içerisinde olduğunun ispatıdır. Endoskopik retrograt kolanjiyopankreatografi işlemlerinin daha iyi kapsanması amacıyla gelecekte bir çalışma zorunlu gözükmektedir. Teknik açıdan da yazılım geliştirme ve idame maliyetlerinin düşürülebilmesi amacıyla yeni yöntemler aranmalı- dır. Bu yöntemler ayrıca farklı enformasyon sistemlerinin entegrasyonu ve birlikte çalışabilirliğine çözüm getirmelidir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ATALAĞ, K., BİLGEN, S., GÜR, G., BOYACIOĞLU, A. S. (2007). Gastrointestinal endoskopi için minimal standart terminoloji’nin bir endoskopik enformasyon sistemi geliştirilerek değerlendirilmesi. Turkish Journal of Gastroenterology, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 3, 157–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/411164

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. Gouveia-Oliveira A, Raposo VD, Azevedo AP, et al. SISCOPE: a multiuser information system for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 1991; 23: 272-7
  2. Gouveia-Oliveira A, Raposo VD, Salgado NC, et al. Modification of the OMED nomenclature: a system approach based on the SISCOPE data model. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 457- 60
  3. Vicary R. System design: which requirements should be met? Endoscopy 1992; 24: 467-70
  4. Schapiro M. Computerization of endoscopic reports - an ASGE proposal. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 478-80. 5. de Dombal FT. Organization of data input: the importance of rapid/high quality data collection. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 490-2
  5. Venables CW. Clinical experience with computerized endoscopic record systems in the UK. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 481-6
  6. Kuhn K. Knowledge-based user guidance for endoscopic database systems. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 499-501
  7. Moorman PW. Towards formal medical reporting: an evaluation in endoscopy. Master of Science Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam 1995
  8. Aabakken L. Endoscopy databases: the Norwegian experience. Endoscopy 1996; 28: 501-4
  9. Sackmann M, Rosette R, Busl T, et al. A scientific relational database combined with a report generator for endoscopy in networks: EndoNet. Endoscopy 1998; 30: 610-6
  10. Axon ATR, Sobala GM. Computers in endoscopy – scientific aspects and research. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 532-33
  11. Zwiebel FM, Sauerbruch T. Quality assurance by computerized endoscopy record systems. Endoscopy 1992; 24: 527- 31
  12. O’Mahony S, Naylor G, Axon A. Quality assurance in gastrointestinal endoscopy. Endoscopy 2000; 32: 483-8
  13. Robertson DJ, Lawrence LB, Shaheen NJ, et al. Quality of colonoscopy reporting: a process of care study. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97: 2651-6
  14. Korman LY, Delvaux M, Crespi M. The minimal standard terminology in digestive endoscopy: perspective on a standard endoscopic vocabulary. Gastrointest Endosc 2001; 53: 392-6
  15. Naylor G, Gatta L, Butler A, et al. Setting up a quality assurance program in endoscopy. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 701-7. 17. de Lange T, Moum BA, Tholfsen JK, et al. Standardization and quality of endoscopy text reports in ulcerative colitis. Endoscopy 2003; 35: 835-40
  16. Maratka Z. Terminology, definitions and diagnostic criteria in digestive endoscopy. Scan J Gastroenterol 1984; 19: 1- 74
  17. Maratka Z. Terminology, definitions and diagnostic criteria in digestive endoscopy. 4th ed. Bad Homburg: Normed Verlag, 1999
  18. Crespi M, Delvaux M, Schapiro M, et al. Work