ArticleGut and liver2023
Factors Affecting the Learning Curve in the Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Sampling of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Prospective Study.
Article in Gut and liver, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development of American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy standards for training in advanced endoscopy within dedicated advanced endoscopy fellowship programs.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2025Guideline
- Contemporary status of diagnostic endoluminal ultrasound and optical coherence tomography in the ureter.BJUI compass · 2024Review
- Comparing needle types and aspiration techniques in EUS-TA to optimize diagnostic efficacy and specimen quality in patients with pancreatic lesions.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Endosonography is associated with a long learning curve. We aimed to assess variables that may influence the diagnostic outcomes in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) of solid pancreatic tumors regarding the level of endoscopists' experience. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing EUS-guided puncture of solid pancreatic tumors (eight endosonographers, including six trainees) were prospectively enrolled. An experienced endosonographer was defined as having performed at least 250 EUS examinations, including 75 FNA/Bs. The final diagnosis was determined by cytopathology, histopathology, or clinical follow-up. Results: In total, 283 EUS-FNA/Bs of solid pancreatic tumors (75.6% malignant) in 239 patients (median age 69 years, 57.6% males) were enrolled. Trainees performed 149/283 (52.7%) of the interventions. Accuracy and sensitivity for detecting malignancy were significantly higher in the expert group than in the trainee group (85.8% vs 73.2%, p=0.01 and 82.5% vs 68.4%, p=0.02). Solid lesions evaluated by an expert using FNB needles showed the best odds for a correct diagnosis (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.15 to 8.23; p=0.02). More experienced endoscopists achieved better accuracy in sampling via the transduodenal approach (86.7% vs 68.5%, p<0.001), in the sampling of malignant lesions (82.5 vs 68.4, p=0.02), and in the sampling of lesions located in the pancreatic head (86.1 vs 69.1, p=0.02). In cases involving these factors, we observed a moderate improvement in the diagnostic accuracy after 40 attempts. Conclusions: Transduodenal approach, pancreatic head lesions, and malignancy were recognized as the most important clinical factors affecting the learning curve in EUS-FNA/B of solid pancreatic lesions.
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.