SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Transjugular Portal Pressure Measurements: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: refining a new approach.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePublished reviews of endoscopic ultrasound-guided portal pressure gradient (EUS-PPG) have emphasized feasibility and safety. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis specifically to evaluate how closely EUS-based portal pressure measurements track invasive comparator measurements in prospective paired studies and to summarize agreement, technical success, and adverse events.
methodsWe searched major databases through January 2026 for prospective cohorts reporting same-patient EUS-based portal pressure measurement and invasive hemodynamic measurements. Correlations were pooled with random-effects models and analyzed separately for studies comparing EUS-PPG with hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) and studies comparing EUS-based portal measurements with direct portal venous pressure. Agreement and threshold discordance were summarized descriptively.
resultsSix prospective cohorts (127 attempted procedures) were included. In studies using HVPG as the comparator, the pooled correlation was 0.82 (95% CI, 0.72-0.89; I
conclusionsEUS-based portal pressure measurement is feasible and shows a strong association with invasive hemodynamic comparators, but the evidence base remains small (six cohorts, 127 attempted procedures). Further study will be necessary to establish patient-level agreement, procedural reproducibility, EUS-specific clinically significant portal hypertension thresholds, and whether HVPG-based decision thresholds can be transferred to EUS-derived measurements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42249245What 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.