ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Endoscopic Ultrasound Quality Metrics in Clinical Practice.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS), particularly EUS-guided tissue acquisition, may have affected EUS procedural performance as measured by current American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ASGE)/American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) quality indicators. Our study aims to assess how these quality metrics are met in clinical practice. We retrospectively analyzed 732 EUS procedures; data collected were procedural indications, technical aspects and outcomes, completeness of documentation, and malignancy staging. EUS was performed in 660 patients for a variety of indications. All ASGE/ACG EUS procedural quality metrics were met or exceeded. Intervention was successful in 97.7% (715/732) of cases, with complication rate of 0.4% (3/732). EUS outcomes changed clinical management in 58.7% of all cases and in 91.2% of malignancy work-up cases; in 26.0% of suspected choledocholithiasis cases, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) was avoided after EUS. Locoregional EUS staging was accurate in 61/65 (93.8%) cases of non-metastatic disease and in 15/22 (68.2%) cases of metastatic disease. Pancreatic mass malignancy detection rate with EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) or fine needle biopsy (FNB) was 75.8%, with a sensitivity of 96.2%; a significant increase in detection rate from 46.2% (6/13) to 95.0% (19/20) (
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.