ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Outcomes of diagnostic and therapeutic EUS procedures in live course
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Live courses are important sources of endoscopy education. While diagnostic and therapeutic EUS procedures have been increasingly performed in live courses recently, data on outcomes of EUS in live courses remain scarce. This study aims to compare outcomes of EUS procedures in live courses Methods: All diagnostic and therapeutic EUS cases performed in workshops at Prince of Wales Hospital at The Chinese University of Hong Kong from 2015 to 2021 were considered for inclusion. Therapeutic EUS cases were divided into 5 subtypes: rendezvous, access (biliary, pancreatic, and enteric), endohepatology, lesion ablation or injection, and drainage (cystogastrostomy and gallbladder drainage). Propensity score matching of procedure subtype, procedure date, and age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index was performed to match live course and routine service cases on a 1:1 basis for comparison. Results: After propensity score matching, 108 live courses and 108 routine service cases were included in the analysis. Access procedures were the most common therapeutic EUS subtype performed, followed by lesion injection/ablation and drainage procedures. Rates of benign and malignant indications for procedure were comparable in both cohorts. Technical success was 100% in diagnostic EUS in both groups. There was no significant difference in technical success in therapeutic EUS (96.7% Conclusion: In this study, diagnostic and therapeutic EUS performed during live courses yield similar technical success and safety outcomes compared with cases performed routinely.
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.