ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Endosonographers performing on-site evaluation of solid pancreatic specimens for EUS-guided biopsy: A formal training method and learning curves.
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.
- EUS-FNA with ROSE for pancreatic solid lesions: a single-center experience.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- In-room cytologic evaluation by trained endosonographer for determination of procedure end in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions: a prospective study in Taiwan.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasonography in pelvic masses with bowel involvement.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2023Review
- Exploring KRAS-mutant pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a model validation study.Frontiers in immunology · 2023Article
- EUS-FNA of pancreatic cystic lesions: Should the endoscopic ultrasonographer learn to process the sample in the room?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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to examine the effects of a training program combining formal cytological curriculum and practical assessments on endosonographers and to determine how many operations were needed for training through learning curves.
methodsA formal cytological curriculum was implemented in November 2019 for four endosonographers. The competency of endosonographers before and after the curriculum was judged by quantitative scores. From December 2019 to October 2020, trainees independently examined the adequacy and atypia grade of pancreatic specimens acquired by EUS-guided-fine-needle biopsy based on specific atypical grading criteria. The accuracy of the adequacy and atypia assessment of each trainee was calculated, and learning curves were drawn to evaluate the improvement.
resultsThe median posttraining score improved by 87% from 49 to 91.5 out of 100. Ninety patients were enrolled in the practical assessments. The accuracy for specimen adequacy and atypia assessment of each trainee was 91.7%, 92.8%, 91.0%, and 89.3% and 80.0%, 82.1%, 81.0%, and 78.9%. The learning curves of each trainee showed a steady and significant improvement, and ninety cases were sufficient for satisfactory adequacy assessment.
conclusionsBasic knowledge of on-site cytopathologic evaluation can be gained through standardized and systematic training. Practical assessments showed that, at the completion of ninety cases, trained endosonographers reached a satisfactory level of recognizing specimen adequacy, but continue practice was needed for atypia assessment.
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.