Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Nov;12(9):1200-1210.
doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12669. Epub 2024 Sep 27.

Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality

F Theunissen  1 , P C J Ter Borg  2 , R J T Ouwendijk  2 , M J Bruno  1 , P D Siersema  1 ; Trans.IT foundation study group
Affiliations

Overview of a national endoscopy database: The Trans.IT database and its impact on data registration quality

F Theunissen et al. United European Gastroenterol J. 2024 Nov.

Abstract

Background: The Trans.IT database is a national gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy database developed in 2012. It automatically collects anonymous data from GI endoscopy procedures in a centralized database. All endoscopists use a structured reporting tool for uniform data collection. In this study, we aim to provide an overview of the database and to evaluate its impact on data registration quality.

Methods: We used all ERCPs, colonoscopies and colorectal cancer (CRC)-screening colonoscopies performed between 2016 and 2020. We excluded centers joining after 2016 and patients below age 18. Data registration quality for ERCPs included completeness of data for: intention of ERCP, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status (virgin or previous sphincterotomy), cannulation (success or failure to cannulate the desired duct) and procedural success. For colonoscopies: indication, ASA-classification, Boston Bowel Preparation Score (BBPS), cecal intubation, polyp detection rate (PDR). For CRC-screening colonoscopies, ASA-classification, BBPS, cecal intubation, PDR and adenoma detection rate (ADR).

Results: A total of 14,156 ERCPs, 150,962 colonoscopies and 37,199 colorectal cancer screening colonoscopies were included in our analysis. For ERCPs, registration of procedural intention, Schutz score, ASA classification, papillary status, cannulation and procedural success improved from 34.9%, 32.7%, 72.6%, 36.5%, 34.6%, 27.2% in 2016, to 86.4%, 84.6%, 97.4%, 86.4%, 82.1%, 84.0%, respectively, in 2020. For non-screening colonoscopies, registration of indication, ASA classification, BBPS, cecal intubation and PDR improved from 40.4%, 60.5%, 47.6%, 69.8% and 32.3% in 2016 to 90.3%, 88.9%, 59.8%, 79.1% and 39.1%, respectively, in 2020. For CRC-cancer screening colonoscopy registration equaled outcome, PDR and ADR changed from 74.7% to 63.6% in 2016 to 66.3% and 53.8% in 2020, respectively.

Conclusions: The quality of endoscopy data registration has consistently improved over the years by using the Trans.IT database. This is most likely the result of feedback to performing endoscopists to review performance in real-time online and progressive awareness of quality of data registration.

Keywords: ASA classification; Boston bowel preparation score; CRC; ERCP; adenoma detection rate; colonoscopy; colorectal cancer; gastrointestinal; registry; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

F. Theunissen: no conflicting interests. P. C. J. ter Borg: no conflicting interests. R. J. Ouwendijk: Research grants from Janssen Netherlands, Norgine and the Coolsingel Foundation. M. J. Bruno: Boston Scientific; Consultant, support for industry and investigator‐initiated studies; Cook Medical; Consultant, support for industry and investigator initiated studies; Pentax Medical; support for investigator initiated studies; Mylan; support for investigator initiated studies; ChiRoStim; support for investigator initiated studies. P. D. Siersema: Research grants from Norgine, Pentax, FujiFilm, Microtech, Sanofi, Magentiq Eye, for investigator‐initiated studies; Advisory Board of Sanofi.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
Schematic overview of a standard report.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2
Schematic overview of a structured report.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 3
Overview of the homepage of the Trans.IT database.
FIGURE 4
FIGURE 4
Data registration quality of ERCPs between 2016 and 2020.
FIGURE 5
FIGURE 5
Data registration quality of colonoscopy between 2016 and 2020.
FIGURE 6
FIGURE 6
Data registration quality (and outcomes for ADR and PDR) of CRC‐screening colonoscopy between 2016 and 2020. ADR, adenoma detection rate; PDR, polyp detection rate.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. van Turenhout ST, Terhaar sive Droste JS, Meijer GA, Masclée AA, Mulder CJ. Anticipating implementation of colorectal cancer screening in The Netherlands: a nation wide survey on endoscopic supply and demand. BMC Cancer. 2012;12(1):46. 10.1186/1471-2407-12-46 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Adler DG, Lieb JG, 2nd , Cohen J, Pike IM, Park WG, Rizk MK, et al. Quality indicators for ERCP. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;81(1):54–66. 10.1016/j.gie.2014.07.056 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Domagk D, Oppong KW, Aabakken L, Czakó L, Gyökeres T, Manes G, et al. Performance measures for ERCP and endoscopic ultrasound: a European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy. 2018;50(11):1116–1127. 10.1055/a-0749-8767 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kaminski MF, Thomas‐Gibson S, Bugajski M, Bretthauer M, Rees C, Dekker E, et al. Performance measures for lower gastrointestinal endoscopy: a European society of gastrointestinal endoscopy (ESGE) quality improvement initiative. Endoscopy. 2017;49(04):378–397. 10.1055/s-0043-103411 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Baron TH, Petersen BT, Mergener K, Chak A, Cohen J, Deal SE, et al. Quality indicators for endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. Am J Gastroenterol. 2006;101(4):892–897. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2006.00675.x - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources