ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
An international, multi-institution survey of the use of EUS in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of rapid on-site evaluation in pancreatic lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Scoparone inhibits pancreatic cancer through PI3K/Akt signaling pathway.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Article
- The Role of EUS and EUS-FNA in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Gallbladder Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Cystic pancreatic lesions, the endless dilemma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Article
- Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
54 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCurrently, pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) are recognized with increasing frequency and have become a more common finding in clinical practice. EUS is challenging in the diagnosis of PCLs and evidence-based decisions are lacking in its application. This study aimed to develop strong recommendations for the use of EUS in the diagnosis of PCLs, based on the experience of experts in the field.
methodsA survey regarding the practice of EUS in the evaluation of PCLs was drafted by the committee member of the International Society of EUS Task Force (ISEUS-TF). It was disseminated to experts of EUS who were also members of the ISEUS-TF. In some cases, percentage agreement with some statements was calculated; in others, the options with the greatest numbers of responses were summarized.
resultsFifteen questions were extracted and disseminated among 60 experts for the survey. Fifty-three experts completed the survey within the specified time frame. The average volume of EUS cases at the experts' institutions is 988.5 cases per year.
conclusionDespite the limitations of EUS alone in the morphologic diagnosis of PCLs, the results of the survey indicate that EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration is widely expected to become a more valuable method.
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.