Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34380805›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

Controversies in EUS: Do we need miniprobes?

Hans Seifert, Pietro Fusaroli, Paolo Giorgio Arcidiacono, Barbara Braden, Felix Herth, Michael Hocke, Alberto Larghi, Bertrand Napoleon, Mihai Rimbas, Bogdan Silvio Ungureanu and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. EUS in pediatric patients.Endoscopic ultrasound
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Hans SeifertDepartment of Gastroenterology, Evangelisches Krankenhaus, Oldenburg; Universitatsklinik fur Innere Medizin - Gastroneterologie, Hepatologie; Klinikum Oldenburg, Germany.
Pietro FusaroliDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Bologna/Imola Hospital, Imola, Italy.
Paolo Giorgio ArcidiaconoResearch Center, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Vita Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, Italy.
Barbara BradenTranslational Gastroenterology Unit I, John Radcliffe Hospital I, Oxford, OX3 9DU, UK.
Felix Herth2nd Department of Pneumology and Critical Care Medicine, Thoraxklinik and Translational Lung Research Center (TLRCH), Member of the German Lung Research Foundation (DZL), University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Michael HockeDepartment of Medicine, Helios Klinikum Meiningen, Meiningen, Germany.
Alberto LarghiDigestive Endoscopy Unit, IRCCS Foundation University Hospital, Policlinico A. Gemelli, Rome, Italy.
Bertrand Napoleon2nd Digestive Endoscopy Unit, HopitalPrivé J Mermoz Ramsay Générale de Santé, Lyon, France.
Mihai RimbasDepartment of Gastroenterology, Colentina Clinical Hospital, Bucharest; Department of Internal Medicine, Carol Davila University of Medicine Bucharest, Romania.
Bogdan Silvio UngureanuResearch Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Craiova, Romania.
Adrian SãftoiuResearch Center of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Craiova, University of Medicine and Pharmacy Craiova, Craiova, Romania.
Anand V SahaiCenter Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, Canada.
Christoph F DietrichDepartment of Allgemeine Innere Medizin, Kliniken Hirslanden, Beau Site, Salem und Permanence, Bern, Switzerland; Department of Medical Ultrasound, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Klinikum Oldenburg · DEUniversity of Bologna · ITAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITEvangelisches Krankenhaus Oldenburg · DEHelios Vogtland Klinikum Plauen · DEJohn Radcliffe Hospital · GBTongji Hospital · CNUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy of Craiova · ROVita-Salute San Raffaele University · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is the fifth in a series of papers entitled "Controversies in EUS." In the current paper, we deal with high-resolution catheter probes, otherwise known as EUS miniprobes (EUS-MPs). The application of miniprobes for early carcinomas in the entire intestinal tract, for subepithelial lesions, and for findings in the bile duct and pancreatic duct as well as endobronchial use is critically discussed. Submucous lesions, especially in the colon, but also early carcinomas in special cases are considered the most important indications. The argument is illustrated by numerous examples.

Indexed as

cancercatheter probesEUShigh-frequency ultrasoundintraductal ultrasoundminiprobes

Identifiers

PMID34380805
PMCPMC8411553
OpenAlexW3192882620

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.