Trial reportUnited European gastroenterology journal2026
The Impact of Endoscopic Ultrasound and Multidisciplinary Team Evaluation on the Management of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions.
Trial report in United European gastroenterology journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary Team Approach for Managing Pancreatic Cysts: Impact, Bias, and Opportunities for Improvement.United European gastroenterology journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetrospective evaluations of multidisciplinary team (MDT) review of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCL) demonstrate improved PCL management. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) evaluates PCL for worrisome features; however, its influence on MDT is unclear and may be attenuated by anchoring/confirmation bias. We aimed to evaluate the impact of EUS and the overall performance of MDT evaluation of PCL.
methodsFour mock MDT sessions at two institutions were presented imaging from 40 consecutive PCL cases (20 "high-risk" with advanced neoplasia, 20 "low-risk" with pathologic low-grade dysplasia or ≥ 3 years of non-progression on surveillance), with and without upfront EUS/FNA (cytology, CEA, Amylase), in a randomized, crossover design. Group 1 adjudicated without EUS, Group 2 adjudicated with EUS, and Group 3 adjudicated with EUS after initially adjudicating without it.
resultsThe cohort included branch-duct (n = 20), mixed type (n = 6), and main duct (n = 4) IPMN, MCN (n = 5), and non-mucinous PCL (n = 5). Group 2 (EUS) correctly identified mucinous PCL with 97% sensitivity and 70% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (No EUS) (Sensitivity 91%, Specificity 20%; p = 0.04). Group 3 (Unblinded to EUS) performed significantly worse in mucinous PCL identification compared with Group 2, indicating cognitive bias (Sensitivity 97%, Specificity 10% (p = 0.0003)). Group 2 correctly identified high-risk PCL that required surgical intervention with 85% sensitivity and 85% specificity, significantly higher than Group 1 (Sensitivity 60%, Specificity 75%; p = 0.0016) and Group 3 (Sensitivity 73%, Specificity 80%, p = 0.0485).
conclusionWhile susceptible to cognitive bias, EUS significantly improves MDT assessment of PCL. MDT establishes a high bar for iterative additions of biomarkers to PCL analysis.
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.