Many journals now expand their reach beyond just the print publication including online publication and even online-only publication. Professional and public social media sites, such as such as Facebook, Twitter, WeChat, ResearchGate, Doximity, and LinkedIn, allow peer-to-peer and journal-to-peer sharing of articles and online discussion and will likely continue and gain more popularity.
2.5.2 The Future of Scientific Publications
Publication through printed journals, which are distributed to individuals and libraries in monthly issues, has been the preferred method of scientific publication for more than a century. Scientific publication is rapidly evolving and includes open access journals, with or without peer review. While some well-respected open access journals (e.g., F1000, PLoS) publish high-quality scientific articles,13,14 others are fraught with opportunities to publish poorly designed or even plagiarized material.
The mechanism of editorial review is changing toward a more open and peer-to-peer communication. While anyone can post their scientific discovery online, the role of journals and editors will continue to be valuable. For many busy scientists and physicians, it will remain valuable to have an expert editor identify the most important new studies relevant to their needs among rapid explosion of studies being performed and published. The journal itself will likely evolve into a refined portal of information linking each study with the physicians and scientist who can most apply that new knowledge. Despite these very rapid and uncertain changes, there is no doubt that clinical research and the communication will be valuable to physicians, scientists, and patients alike, with the role of editors to ensure that knowledge is effectively and accurately conveyed.
References
[1] Tunis SR, Stryer DB, Clancy CM. Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003; 290(12):1624–1632
[2] Wallace MB, Pascual JM, Raimondo M, et al. Minimally invasive endoscopic staging of suspected lung cancer. JAMA. 2008; 299(5):540–546
[3] Wallace MB. Endoscopic ultrasound staging of lung cancer. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005; 172(3):400–401, author reply 401
[4] Kapoor K, Wu BU, Banks PA. The value of formal clinical research training in initiating a career as a clinical investigator. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y). 2011; 7(12):810–813
[5] ICMJE. Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2016. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed February 16, 2016
[6] van den Broek FJ, Kuiper T, et al. Study designs to compare new colonoscopic techniques: clinical considerations, data analysis, and sample size calculations. Endoscopy. 2013; 45(11):922–927
[7] Lau JY, Leung WK, Wu JCY, et al. Omeprazole before endoscopy in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(16):1631–1640
[8] Parsonnet J, Hansen S, Rodriguez L, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection and gastric lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 1994; 330(18):1267–1271
[9] Lagergren J, Bergström R, Lindgren A, Nyrén O. Symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux as a risk factor for esophageal adenocarcinoma. N Engl J Med. 1999; 340(11):825–831
[10] Wallace MB, Siersema PD. Ethics in publication. Gastrointest Endosc. 2015; 82(3):439–442
[11] Wallace MB, Siersema PD. Ethics in publication. Endoscopy. 2015; 47(7):575–578
[12] ICMJE. Clinical trials registration. 2015. Available at: http://www.icmje.org/about-icmje/faqs/clinical-trials-registration/. Accessed April 3, 2015
[13] Björk B-C, Solomon D. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. BMC Med. 2012; 10(1):73
[14] Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V, et al. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One. 2010; 5(10): e13636
Section II
The Patient and Endoscopy
3 Informed Consent for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
4 Patient Preparation and Sedation for Endoscopy
5 Design of The Endoscopy Suite
6 Cleaning and Disinfection in Endoscopy
7 Electrosurgical Principles for Endoscopy
8 Antibiotic Prophylaxis in Endoscopy
9 Quality Assurance in Endoscopy
11 Anticoagulation and endoscopy
3 Informed Consent for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy
Andrew E. Axon and Anthony T. R. Axon
3.1 Introduction
Informed consent for gastrointestinal endoscopy is an essential part of a quality endoscopy service. It empowers patients to determine their own medical management based on an understanding of their clinical condition and the potential risks, benefits, and alternatives to the proposed intervention. It also protects the endoscopist and the clinical institution providing the service from liability for complications arising outside their control. It therefore benefits all parties. This chapter considers the principles underlying informed consent in digestive endoscopy. It draws attention to the rights of the patient giving consent and discusses when and how consent should be taken and by whom. It sets out what information should be disclosed and considers those cases where consent may not be required or is undesirable. In particular, the chapter addresses the medicolegal issues that are evolving with the increasing burden of litigation that is influencing medical management in the 21st century.
Historically, the medical profession has adopted a paternalistic approach to patient management. Hippocrates said “… sometimes you will have to deftly comfort [your patient] without revealing the true progress of his illness because many patients take a turn for the worse when they find out about their condition and the prognosis.”1 A prototype of informed consent operated as long ago as the 14th century, but it was employed more to protect the doctor than to enable patient autonomy.2 Since the beginning of the 20th century, patients have been able to sue their surgeon successfully if their expressed wishes concerning an operation had been ignored, but there was no requirement for “informed consent” until late in that century.2 Following the Nuremberg trials, ethics relating to medical research came under scrutiny, but this did not have a major impact on medical practice in the United Kingdom. In 1967, Pappworth controversially published “Human guinea pigs”—a history.3,4