OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) quality benchmarks for pancreatic disease previously focused on maintaining thresholds of diagnostic accuracy for fine-needle aspiration and measuring complications. We aimed to evaluate quality indicators when performing EUS specifically for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP). METHODS: Using a single-center EUS database, we identified patients who underwent an EUS since 2001 specifically for the indication of (1) suspected CP, (2) exclusion of CP, or (3) established CP. Each EUS report was evaluated for the number of parenchymal and ductal criteria as per minimal standards terminology criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six EUS examinations performed by 4 endosonographers were included. The mean number of reported evaluated parenchymal criteria was 2.44 (median, 2), and that of ductal criteria was 2.41 (median, 2). There was a difference among endosonographers in terms of mean number of total criteria reported evaluated (P < 0.001): endosonographer 1 = 3.9 (n = 174 examinations), endosonographer 2 = 6.8 (n = 86 examinations), endosonographer 3 = 6.2 (n = 13 examinations), and endosonographer 4 = 2.5 (n = 11 examinations). However, there was no difference between endosonographers in the number of total (parenchymal and ductal) criteria found. CONCLUSIONS: There was a discrepancy among endosonographers when reporting which EUS findings were evaluated in patients undergoing EUS specifically to diagnose CP.
OBJECTIVES: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) quality benchmarks for pancreatic disease previously focused on maintaining thresholds of diagnostic accuracy for fine-needle aspiration and measuring complications. We aimed to evaluate quality indicators when performing EUS specifically for the diagnosis of chronic pancreatitis (CP). METHODS: Using a single-center EUS database, we identified patients who underwent an EUS since 2001 specifically for the indication of (1) suspected CP, (2) exclusion of CP, or (3) established CP. Each EUS report was evaluated for the number of parenchymal and ductal criteria as per minimal standards terminology criteria. RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six EUS examinations performed by 4 endosonographers were included. The mean number of reported evaluated parenchymal criteria was 2.44 (median, 2), and that of ductal criteria was 2.41 (median, 2). There was a difference among endosonographers in terms of mean number of total criteria reported evaluated (P < 0.001): endosonographer 1 = 3.9 (n = 174 examinations), endosonographer 2 = 6.8 (n = 86 examinations), endosonographer 3 = 6.2 (n = 13 examinations), and endosonographer 4 = 2.5 (n = 11 examinations). However, there was no difference between endosonographers in the number of total (parenchymal and ductal) criteria found. CONCLUSIONS: There was a discrepancy among endosonographers when reporting which EUS findings were evaluated in patients undergoing EUS specifically to diagnose CP.
Authors: Brian C Jacobson; Amitabh Chak; Brenda Hoffman; Todd H Baron; Jonathan Cohen; Stephen E Deal; Klaus Mergener; Bret T Petersen; John L Petrini; Michael A Safdi; Douglas O Faigel; Irving M Pike Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2006-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Douglas G Adler; David Lichtenstein; Todd H Baron; Raquel Davila; James V Egan; Seng-lan Gan; Waqar A Qureshi; Elizabeth Rajan; Bo Shen; Marc J Zuckerman; Kenneth K Lee; Trina VanGuilder; Robert D Fanelli Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Marc F Catalano; Anand Sahai; Michael Levy; Joseph Romagnuolo; Maurits Wiersema; William Brugge; Martin Freeman; Kenji Yamao; Marcia Canto; Lyndon V Hernandez Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2009-02-24 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: David E R Sutherland; David M Radosevich; Melena D Bellin; Bernard J Hering; Gregory J Beilman; Ty B Dunn; Srinath Chinnakotla; Selwyn M Vickers; Barbara Bland; A N Balamurugan; Martin L Freeman; Timothy L Pruett Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Elizabeth Rajan; Jonathan E Clain; Michael J Levy; Ian D Norton; Kenneth K Wang; Maurits J Wiersema; Enrique Vazquez-Sequeiros; Barbara J Nelson; Mary L Jondal; Rebecca K Kendall; W Scott Harmsen; Alan R Zinsmeister Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: T Stevens; G Zuccaro; J A Dumot; J J Vargo; M A Parsi; R Lopez; H L Kirchner; E Purich; D L Conwell Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2009-09-15 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Chencheng Xie; Kimberlee Bohy; Mohamed A Abdallah; Bhaveshkumar Patel; Morgan E Nelson; Jonathan Bleeker; Ryan Askeland; Ammar Abdullah; Khalil Aloreidi; Rabia Kiani; Muslim Atiq Journal: Ann Gastroenterol Date: 2020-05-10
Authors: Suqing Li; Marc Monachese; Misbah Salim; Naveen Arya; Anand V Sahai; Nauzer Forbes; Christopher Teshima; Mohammad Yaghoobi; Yen-I Chen; Eric Lam; Paul James Journal: Endosc Ultrasound Date: 2021 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.628