BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A prolific trend currently designates endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) literature. We aimed to record all EUS-studies published during the past decade and evaluate them in terms of scientific quality, creating a stratification based on levels of evidence (LE). METHODS: All articles on EUS published between January 2001 and December 2010 were retrieved using a Pubmed and Cochrane Library search. Inclusion criteria were: original research papers (randomized controlled trials-RCTs, prospective and retrospective studies), meta-analyses, reviews and surveys pertinent to gastrointestinal EUS. Levels of evidence (LE) were assessed using the North of England evidence-based guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 1,832 eligible articles were reviewed. The majority (46.1%) of reports comprised retrospective descriptive studies (LE III). Expert reviews and committee reports (LE IV) accounted for 28.9%, well-designed quasi-experimental studies (LE IIb) for 20.1%, RCTs (LE Ib) for 2.4%, prospective controlled trials (LE IIa) for 1.4%, and meta-analyses (LE Ia) for 1.1% of the total. High LE (Ia-Ib) were assigned to loco-regional staging of luminal gastrointestinal cancers; mediastinal staging of lung cancer; diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic tumors, suspected biliary obstruction and choledocholithiasis; celiac plexus neurolysis; and pancreatic pseudocysts drainage. Intermediate to low LE (IIa-IV) were assigned to submucosal tumors, pancreatic cysts, chronic pancreatitis and novel therapeutic applications (pancreato-biliary drainage, tumor ablation). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic and staging EUS has matured and has proven its clinical impact on patient management. Therapeutic or interventional EUS is still evolving and more quality research and data are needed to establish EUS as the best next intervention to perform once firm evidence is available.
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A prolific trend currently designates endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) literature. We aimed to record all EUS-studies published during the past decade and evaluate them in terms of scientific quality, creating a stratification based on levels of evidence (LE). METHODS: All articles on EUS published between January 2001 and December 2010 were retrieved using a Pubmed and Cochrane Library search. Inclusion criteria were: original research papers (randomized controlled trials-RCTs, prospective and retrospective studies), meta-analyses, reviews and surveys pertinent to gastrointestinal EUS. Levels of evidence (LE) were assessed using the North of England evidence-based guidelines. RESULTS: Overall, 1,832 eligible articles were reviewed. The majority (46.1%) of reports comprised retrospective descriptive studies (LE III). Expert reviews and committee reports (LE IV) accounted for 28.9%, well-designed quasi-experimental studies (LE IIb) for 20.1%, RCTs (LE Ib) for 2.4%, prospective controlled trials (LE IIa) for 1.4%, and meta-analyses (LE Ia) for 1.1% of the total. High LE (Ia-Ib) were assigned to loco-regional staging of luminal gastrointestinal cancers; mediastinal staging of lung cancer; diagnostic work-up of solid pancreatic tumors, suspected biliary obstruction and choledocholithiasis; celiac plexus neurolysis; and pancreatic pseudocysts drainage. Intermediate to low LE (IIa-IV) were assigned to submucosal tumors, pancreatic cysts, chronic pancreatitis and novel therapeutic applications (pancreato-biliary drainage, tumor ablation). CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic and staging EUS has matured and has proven its clinical impact on patient management. Therapeutic or interventional EUS is still evolving and more quality research and data are needed to establish EUS as the best next intervention to perform once firm evidence is available.
Authors: Donald Garrow; Scott Miller; Debajyoti Sinha; Jason Conway; Brenda J Hoffman; Robert H Hawes; Joseph Romagnuolo Journal: Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 11.382
Authors: Adrian Săftoiu; Sevasti A Iordache; Dan Ionu Gheonea; Carmen Popescu; Anca Maloş; Florin Gorunescu; Tudorel Ciurea; Alexandru Iordache; Gabriel Lucian Popescu; C T Lin Manea Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Mohamad A Eloubeidi; Robert J Cerfolio; Victor K Chen; Renee Desmond; Sujath Syed; Buddhiwardhan Ojha Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: B Bournet; A Souque; P Senesse; E Assenat; M Barthet; N Lesavre; A Aubert; D O'Toole; P Hammel; P Levy; P Ruszniewski; M Bouisson; J Escourrou; P Cordelier; L Buscail Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-06-16 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Joseph Romagnuolo; Josée Parent; Té Vuong; Mélanie Bélanger; René P Michel; Paul J Belliveau; Judith L Trudel Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Carlo Fabbri; Carmelo Luigiano; Andrea Lisotti; Vincenzo Cennamo; Clara Virgilio; Giancarlo Caletti; Pietro Fusaroli Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-07-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Majed M Almaghrabi; Abdullah S Alamoudi; Suhaib A Radi; Anas A Merdad; Ahmad M Makhdoum; Faisal A Batwa Journal: Saudi J Gastroenterol Date: 2015 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.485
Authors: Sandra Faias; Marília Cravo; João Pereira da Silva; Paula Chaves; A Dias Pereira Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2020-12-09 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Pietro Fusaroli; Mohamad Eloubeidi; Claudio Calvanese; Christoph Dietrich; Christian Jenssen; Adrian Saftoiu; Claudio De Angelis; Shyam Varadarajulu; Bertrand Napoleon; Andrea Lisotti Journal: Endosc Int Open Date: 2021-06-21