ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Technical Performance, Overall Accuracy and Complications of EUS-Guided Interventional Procedures: A Dynamic Landscape.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sound waves of progress: advancing endoscopic ultrasound in pediatric gastroenterology.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) gained wide acceptance as the diagnostic and minimally invasive therapeutic approach for intra-luminal and extraluminal gastrointestinal, as well as various non-gastrointestinal lesions. Since its introduction, EUS has undergone substantial technological advances. This multi-centric study is a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database of patients who underwent EUS for the evaluation of lesions located within the gastrointestinal tract and the proximal organs. It aimed to extensively assess in dynamic the dual-center EUS experience over the course of the past 20 years. Hence, we performed a population study and an overall assessment of the EUS procedures. The performance of EUS-FNA/FNB in diagnosing pancreatic neoplasms was evaluated. We also investigated the contribution of associating contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging (CE-EUS) with EUS-FNA/FNB for differentiating solid pancreatic lesions or cystic pancreatic lesions. A total of 2935 patients undergoing EUS between 2002-2021 were included, out of which 1880 were diagnostic EUS and 1052 EUS-FNA/FNB (80% FNA and 20% FNB). Therapeutic procedures performed included endoscopic transmural drainage of pancreatic fluid collections, celiac plexus block and neurolysis, while diagnostic EUS-like CE-EUS (20%) and real-time elastography (12%) were also conducted. Most complications occurred during the first 7 days after EUS-FNA/FNB or pseudocyst drainage. EUS and the additional tools have high technical success rates and low rates of complications. The EUS methods are safe, cost effective and indispensable for the diagnostic or therapeutic management in gastroenterological everyday practice.
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.