ArticleYonago acta medica2019
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Usefulness of Endoscopic Ultrasound Processor.
Article in Yonago acta medica, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a useful tool for diagnosing pancreatobiliary diseases, not many facilities perform this technique as it is difficult to master. Currently, two new EUS systems exist: EU-ME2/GF-UCT260, manufactured by Olympus, and SU-1/EG-580UT, manufactured by Fujifilm. Some reports have compared new EUS models to older versions, but the operability and image quality of these two latest systems have not been compared. Our study aimed to compare the usefulness of these two types of EUS.
methodsForty consecutive patients were recruited and randomized in a two-arm clinical trial; Arm 1: EU-ME2/GF-UCT260 was used only for observation and SU-1/EG-580UT for EUS-fine needle aspiration (FNA); Arm 2: SU-1/EG-580UT was used only for observation and EU-ME2/GF-UCT260 for EUS-FNA. Using a crossover design, we evaluated image findings, ease of scope insertion, and visibility of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. Each procedure was scored using a 5-point scale (Clinical Trial ID: UMIN000031373).
resultsSU-1/EG-580UT was significantly better in terms of lesion-delineating capacity: lesion border (
conclusionSU-1/EG-580UT EUS demonstrated superior performance during ultrasonic endoscopic GI observation, operability, and ultrasonic image quality. The result of the superior ultrasound imaging quality of SU-1/EG-580UT EUS will aid in the identification of small pancreatic malignancies with unclear borders and prove useful in evaluating mural nodules of IPMN in detail. These findings could result in an increased use of EUS and improve identification and prognosis of patients with pancreatobiliary diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30962750PMC6437413What 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.