{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.04076590487955528, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0253242742433601, 'mean_word_length': 5.48, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reported Findings on Endoscopic Ultrasound Examinations for Chronic Pancreatitis: Toward Establishing an Endoscopic Ultrasound Quality Benchmark

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.