ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2018
How to measure quality in endoscopic ultrasound.
Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of Decreasing Adverse Events with Endoscopic Ultrasound in a New Advanced Endoscopy Program Over Time.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022Article
- Quality of reporting in endoscopic ultrasound: Results of an international multicenter survey (the QUOREUS study).Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Non-Anesthesiologist Administration of Propofol Sedation in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Propensity Score Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Diagnostic yield of Franseen and Fork-Tip biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2019Article
- Quality in gastrointestinal endoscopy: the preface.Annals of translational medicine · 2018Article
- Standard reporting elements for the performance of EUS: Recommendations from the FOCUS working group.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Quality in pancreatic endoscopic ultrasound: what's new in 2020?Annals of gastroenterologyReview
- Primary Pancreatic Mantle Cell Lymphoma Diagnosed via Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration.Case reports in gastroenterologyArticle
- The Saudi Gastroenterology Association guidelines for quality indicators in gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures.Saudi journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Saudi Gastroenterology AssociationArticle
- Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Quality is a key focus for gastrointestinal endoscopy and main international gastroenterology societies instituted specific task forces focused on this issue. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) represents one of the most fascinating fields to explore in gastrointestinal endoscopy due to its relatively limited availability out of high-volume centers. This leads to a particular need to define widely accepted quality indicators (QIs) and the ways to measure them. The current manuscript reviews these indicators in light of their impact on common clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.