ArticleSurgical endoscopy2026
Practice patterns of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses: an international survey study.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAdvancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) for solid pancreatic masses have prompted updates in society guideline recommendations. However, the extent to which these recommendations have been adopted in clinical practice remains unclear. Thus, we sought to characterize current practice patterns and beliefs regarding EUS-TA for solid pancreatic masses in a large, international cohort of endosonographers.
methodsWe developed and distributed an electronic survey to 1,281 endosonographers worldwide between September and November 2024. The survey aimed to evaluate EUS-TA practices across six domains: A) needle selection, B) sampling technique, C) method guiding the number of passes, D) specimen handling, E) quality indicator (QI) monitoring, and F) factors influencing decision-making.
resultsThe response rate was 30% (n = 376). Most endosonographers often or always use fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles (90%) of 22-gauge (85%) and Franseen design (53%). The majority use a fanning technique (79%) and perform ≤ 10 actuations (60%). The number of FNB passes is mostly guided by visual on-site evaluation (60%). Advanced EUS imaging utilization was low (EUS elastography: 14%; contrast-enhanced EUS: 8%). Institutional QI monitoring was reported by 51% of endosonographers. Compared to other regions, endosonographers in North America are more likely to use rapid on-site evaluation, but less likely to use advanced EUS imaging modalities or have QI monitoring (all p < 0.001).
conclusionThere are significant global variations in EUS-TA practices for solid pancreatic masses. These survey data provide a benchmark to guide standardization, inform quality monitoring, and support evolving technologies to optimize diagnostic outcomes and patient care worldwide.
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.