ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Evaluation of the
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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
19 authors at 17 institutions in 8 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bckground and Objectives: EUS-guided cystogastrostomy is a well-established advanced endoscopic technique with a steep-learning curve which necessitates an ex-vivo simulator that would allow for adequate training. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of the model in allowing training for EUS-guided cystogastrostomy using lumen-apposing metal stent (LAMS). Subjects and Methods: The model was created by ROEYA Training Center, Egypt, using native porcine tissue to create fluid collections simulating both cystic and solid lesions. It was designed and tested in advance while the hydrogel was added on-site. The simulator was evaluated prospectively in five training sessions involving 17 international experts. The task was to successfully deploy the LAMS to drain the created cyst. After using the simulator, the experts were asked to fill a questionnaire to assess their experience. The primary endpoint was overall satisfaction with the model as a training tool. Results: All of the experts were satisfied with the model as a tool to train endoscopists for the technique. 76.5% (n = 11) of the experts thought the model to be moderately realistic. Proper visualization was reported by 94.1% of the experts. All experts believed the lesions to be either slightly like or very similar to real lesions. The model was graded "easy" in difficulty by 11 of the experts. Conclusions: In all parameters assessed, the experts thought the model to be a useful tool for future training. This preliminary study suggests that the aforementioned simulator can be used to train endoscopists on using LAMS in a risk-free environment.
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.