Effect of an online educational module incorporating real-time feedback on accuracy of polyp sizing in trainees: a randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Background Although polyp size dictates surveillance intervals, endoscopists often estimate polyp size inaccurately. We hypothesized that an intervention providing didactic instruction and real-time feedback could significantly improve polyp size classification.

Methods We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of different components of an online educational module on polyp sizing. Participants were randomized to control (no video, no feedback), video only, feedback only, or video + feedback. The primary outcome was accuracy of polyp size classification into clinically relevant categories (diminutive [1–5mm], small [6–9mm], large [≥10mm]). Secondary outcomes included accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm), learning curves, and directionality of inaccuracy (over- vs. underestimation).

Results 36 trainees from five training programs provided 1360 polyp size assessments. The feedback only (80.1%, P=0.01) and video + feedback (78.9%, P=0.02) groups had higher accuracy of polyp size classification compared with controls (71.6%). There was no significant difference in accuracy between the video only group (74.4%) and controls (P=0.42). Groups receiving feedback had higher accuracy of exact polyp size (inmm) and higher peak learning curves. Polyps were more likely to be overestimated than underestimated, and 29.3% of size inaccuracies impacted recommended surveillance intervals.

Conclusions Our online educational module significantly improved polyp size classification. Real-time feedback appeared to be a critical component in improving accuracy. This scalable and no-cost educational module could significantly decrease under- and overutilization of colonoscopy, improving patient outcomes while increasing colonoscopy access.

Publication History

Received: 28 August 2023

Accepted after revision: 15 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
15 January 2024

Article published online:
22 February 2024

• References

• 1 Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE. et al. Cancer statistics, 2022. CA Cancer J Clin 2022; 72: 7-33 DOI: 10.3322/caac.21708. (PMID: 35020204)
• 2 Wallace MB. New strategies to improve polypectomy during colonoscopy. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y) 2017; 13 (Suppl. 03) 1-12 (PMID: 29249913)
• 3 Gupta S, Lieberman D, Anderson JC. et al. Recommendations for follow-up after colonoscopy and polypectomy: a consensus update by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1131-1153.e5
• 4 Chaptini L, Chaaya A, Depalma F. et al. Variation in polyp size estimation among endoscopists and impact on surveillance intervals. Gastrointest Endosc 2014; 80: 652-659
• 5 Plumb AA, Nickerson C, Wooldrage K. et al. Terminal digit preference biases polyp size measurements at endoscopy, computed tomographic colonography, and histopathology. Endoscopy 2016; 48: 899-908 DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-108727. (PMID: 27441685)
• 6 Eichenseer PJ, Dhanekula R, Jakate S. et al. Endoscopic mis-sizing of polyps changes colorectal cancer surveillance recommendations. Dis Colon Rectum 2013; 56: 315-321 DOI: 10.1097/DCR.0b013e31826dd138. (PMID: 23392145)
• 7 Abdelrahim M, Saiga H, Maeda N. et al. Automated sizing of colorectal polyps using computer vision. Gut 2022; 71: 7-9 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2021-324510. (PMID: 34266967)
• 8 Goldstein O, Segol O, Gross SA. et al. Novel device for measuring polyp size: an ex vivo animal study. Gut 2018; 67: 1755-1756 DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314829. (PMID: 28935676)
• 9 Jin HY, Leng Q. Use of disposable graduated biopsy forceps improves accuracy of polyp size measurements during endoscopy. World J Gastroenterol 2015; 21: 623-628 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v21.i2.623. (PMID: 25605986)
• 10 Kaz AM, Anwar A, O’Neill DR. et al. Use of a novel polyp “ruler snare” improves estimation of colon polyp size. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 812-816 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.08.082. (PMID: 26382052)
• 11 Kaltenbach T, Anderson JC, Burke CA. et al. Endoscopic removal of colorectal lesions – recommendations by the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 1095-1129 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.12.018. (PMID: 32122632)
• 12 Joseph DA, Meester RG, Zauber AG. et al. Colorectal cancer screening: estimated future colonoscopy need and current volume and capacity. Cancer 2016; 122: 2479-2486 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.30070. (PMID: 27200481)
• 13 Patel SG, May FP, Anderson JC. et al. Updates on age to start and stop colorectal cancer screening: recommendations from the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 285-299
• 14 Davila-Cervantes A, Foulds JL, Gomaa NA. et al. Experiences of faculty members giving corrective feedback to medical trainees in a clinical setting. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2021; 41: 24-30 DOI: 10.1097/CEH.0000000000000322. (PMID: 33290299)
• 15 Patel SG, Rastogi A, Austin G. et al. Gastroenterology trainees can easily learn histologic characterization of diminutive colorectal polyps with narrow band imaging. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11: 997-1003.e1
• 16 Kaltenbach T, Patel SG, Nguyen-Vu T. et al. Varied trainee competence in cold snare polypectomy – results of the COMPLETE randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2023; DOI: 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002368. (PMID: 37307537)
• 17 Bergman J, de Groof AJ, Pech O. et al. An interactive web-based educational tool improves detection and delineation of Barrett’s esophagus-related neoplasia. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 1299-1308.e3
• 18 Postgate A, Haycock A, Thomas-Gibson S. et al. Computer-aided learning in capsule endoscopy leads to improvement in lesion recognition ability. Gastrointest Endosc 2009; 70: 310-316 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2008.11.043. (PMID: 19386301)
• 19 Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152: 726-732 DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232. (PMID: 20335313)
• 20 Thistlethwaite JE, Davies D, Ekeocha S. et al. The effectiveness of case-based learning in health professional education. A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 23. Med Teach 2012; 34: e421-444 DOI: 10.3109/0142159X.2012.680939. (PMID: 22578051)
• 21 Jensen JL, Berry DA, Kummer TA. Investigating the effects of exam length on performance and cognitive fatigue. PLoS One 2013; 8: e70270 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070270. (PMID: 23950918)
• 22 Lieberman D, Moravec M, Holub J. et al. Polyp size and advanced histology in patients undergoing colonoscopy screening: implications for CT colonography. Gastroenterology 2008; 135: 1100-1105 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.06.083. (PMID: 18691580)
• 23 Ausubel DP, Youssef M. The effect of spaced repetition on meaningful retention. J Gen Psychol 1965; 73: 147-150 DOI: 10.1080/00221309.1965.9711263. (PMID: 14316956)
• 24 Couture M, Lafond D, Tremblay S. Learning correct responses and errors in the Hebb repetition effect: two faces of the same coin. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2008; 34: 524-532 DOI: 10.1037/0278-7393.34.3.524. (PMID: 18444753)
• 25 Keswani RN, Crockett SD, Calderwood AH. AGA clinical practice update on strategies to improve quality of screening and surveillance colonoscopy: expert review. Gastroenterology 2021; 161: 701-711 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.05.041. (PMID: 34334168)
• 26 Kruger J, Dunning D. Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J Pers Soc Psychol 1999; 77: 1121-1134 DOI: 10.1037//0022-3514.77.6.1121. (PMID: 10626367)
• 27 Ahmed O, Walsh TN. Surgical trainee experience with open cholecystectomy and the Dunning–Kruger effect. J Surg Educ 2020; 77: 1076-1081 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.03.025. (PMID: 32362558)
• 28 Lieberman DA, Holub J, Eisen G. et al. Prevalence of polyps greater than 9mm in a consortium of diverse clinical practice settings in the United States. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3: 798-805
• 29 Anderson BW, Smyrk TC, Anderson KS. et al. Endoscopic overestimation of colorectal polyp size. Gastrointest Endosc 2016; 83: 201-208 DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2015.06.058. (PMID: 26318830)
• 30 Mankad K, Hoey ET, Jones JB. et al. Radiology errors: are we learning from our mistakes?. Clin Radiol 2009; 64: 988-993
• 31 Wang P, Berzin TM, Glissen Brown JR. et al. Real-time automatic detection system increases colonoscopic polyp and adenoma detection rates: a prospective randomised controlled study. Gut 2019; 68: 1813-1819
• 32 Jin EH, Lee D, Bae JH. et al. Improved accuracy in optical diagnosis of colorectal polyps using convolutional neural networks with visual explanations. Gastroenterology 2020; 158: 2169-2179.e8
• 33 Luo X, Wang J, Han Z. et al. Artificial intelligence-enhanced white-light colonoscopy with attention guidance predicts colorectal cancer invasion depth. Gastrointest Endosc 2021; 94: 627-638.e1
• 34 Kwak MS, Cha JM, Jeon JW. et al. Artificial intelligence-based measurement outperforms current methods for colorectal polyp size measurement. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 1188-1195 DOI: 10.1111/den.14318. (PMID: 35385184)
• 35 Utsumi T, Horimatsu T, Sano Y. et al. Warning from artificial intelligence against inaccurate polyp size estimation. Dig Endosc 2022; 34: 1196-1197 DOI: 10.1111/den.14364. (PMID: 35762027)
• 36 Gopalswamy N, Shenoy VN, Choudhry U. et al. Is in vivo measurement of size of polyps during colonoscopy accurate?. Gastrointest Endosc 1997; 46: 497-502
• 37 So R, Shinohara K, Aoki T. et al. Effect of recruitment methods on response rate in a web-based study for primary care physicians: factorial randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20: e28 DOI: 10.2196/jmir.8561. (PMID: 29422450)