ArticleGut and liver2026
Nationwide Survey on Endoscopic Papillectomy for Ampullary Adenoma: Current Practices and Variability.
Article in Gut and liver, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Ampullary adenomas are precancerous lesions requiring accurate diagnosis and timely intervention to prevent malignant transformation. Endoscopic papillectomy (EP) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to surgery; however, technical variations in practice remain. This study evaluated contemporary real-world approaches to the diagnosis, treatment, and surveillance of ampullary adenomas among pancreatobiliary endoscopists. Methods: A nationwide cross-sectional survey was conducted among pancreatobiliary endoscopists certified by the Korean Pancreatobiliary Association between January 19 and March 2, 2025. A 29-item questionnaire assessed diagnostic methods, procedural techniques, and follow-up strategies. Of 231 invitations sent, 85 responses (36.8%) were analyzed. Respondents were stratified by EP experience: ≤10 years (n=40) and >10 years (n=45). Results: Diagnostic and procedural strategies were largely comparable across the two experience groups. No significant differences were observed in the histologic reassessment, endoscopic ultrasound test, or cross-sectional images. Single pigtail plastic stents were the most preferred type for prophylactic pancreatic stenting, with a significantly higher preference among endoscopists with ≤10 years of experience compared to those with >10 years (92.5% vs 66.7%, p=0.008). For post-procedural bleeding management, fully covered self-expandable metal stents were more frequently used by endoscopists with ≤10 years of experience (47.5% vs 11.1%, p=0.001). Surveillance intervals, follow-up modalities, and timing of stent removal showed substantial heterogeneity, with no standardized patterns. Conclusions: Although general clinical practices appear standardized, significant variability remains in specific procedural and post-procedural approaches. These findings highlight the need for refined guidelines to support a more consistent and comprehensive approach to EP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.