Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Analysis of learning curves in gastroscopy training: the need for composite measures for defining competence
  1. Keith Siau1,2,
  2. Toshio Kuwai3,
  3. Sauid Ishaq1,4
  1. 1 Department of Gastroenterology, Dudley Group Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Dudley, UK
  2. 2 Joint Advisory Group, Royal College of Physicians, London, UK
  3. 3 Department of Gastroenterology, National Hospital Organization Kure Medical Center and Chugoku Cancer Center, Hiroshima, Japan
  4. 4 Department of Medicine, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, West Midlands, UK
  1. Correspondence to Profosser Sauid Ishaq, Department of Gastroenterology, Birmingham City University, Dudley Group Hospitals, Dudley, DY1 2HQ, UK; Sauid.Ishaq{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with interest and commend the study by Ward and colleagues which explores the learning curve in gastroscopy.1 The authors apply a D2 intubation rate of >95% as a proxy marker of trainee competency, and conclude that 187–200 procedures are sufficient to achieve this, in line with Joint Advisory Group (JAG) certification criteria.2 We would like to debate the following points with the authors.

While we agree that D2 intubation and J-maneouvre reflect procedural completion and rely on motor skill, we argue that this stand-alone measure is insufficient to define competence. Competence is defined by the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy as the ’minimal level of skill, knowledge and/or expertise derived through training and experience that is required to safely and proficiently perform …

View Full Text


  • Twitter @drkeithsiau

  • Contributors All authors contributed equally.

  • Competing interests KS is a research fellow in the JAG quality assurance of training.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles