ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
The application of EUS-guided portal pressure gradient measurement with concomitant EUS-liver elastography and EUS-guided liver biopsy in patients with chronic liver disease: a single center experience.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- EUS-Guided Shear-Wave-Based Elastography: Current Evidence and the Emerging Role of Two-Dimensional Shear-Wave Elastography.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Advances in Precise Assessment of Portal Pressure in Porto-sinusoidal Vascular Disease.Journal of clinical and translational hepatology · 2026Review
- Same Session Validation of a Custom-Built 22G With the Commercial 25G System for EUS-Guided Portal Pressure Gradient Measurement.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
- Advances in endoscopic ultrasound-guided shear wave elastography: A comprehensive review of its clinical applications.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Risk stratification in liver disease includes liver elastography (LE) and portal pressure gradient (PPG) measurement. Objectives: We examined the efficacy and safety of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-liver biopsy (EUS-LB) and the correlation between EUS-PPG and EUS-LE in patients with liver disease. Study design: This is a prospective and retrospective, single-center study. Methods: Data from patients who underwent concomitant EUS-LE, EUS-PPG, and EUS-LB were analyzed. Histologically, significant fibrosis (SF) was considered F2-F4, non-significant fibrosis (NSF) as F0-F1, advanced fibrosis (AF) as F3-F4, and non-advanced fibrosis (NAF) as F0-F2. Results: In total, 25 patients underwent EUS-PPG measurement; 60% were male (mean age, 60 years). EUS-LE and EUS-LB were performed in 88% and 96% of patients, respectively (the technical success rate was 100%). The mean number of portal tracts was 14.3. Histological diagnosis was achieved in all patients; 67% had SF. The mean EUS-LE was 24.1 kPa, and the mean PPG was 4.6 mmHg. Portal hypertension (PH; PPG >5 mmHg) and clinically significant PH (PPG >10 mmHg) were found in 44% and 12%, respectively. Patients with SF had a higher mean PPG (5.9 vs 2.8 mmHg; Conclusion: Concomitant EUS-LB and PPG is safe. EUS-PPG and EUS-LE correlate with the degree of fibrosis on histology. Larger studies are needed to optimize their values in clinical 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.