ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Device failures and patient adverse events from EUS: 26-year FDA MAUDE analysis (2000-2025).
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: EUS has emerged as an essential instrument in the field of gastroenterology, significantly enhancing both diagnostic evaluations and therapeutic procedures. By delivering high-resolution imaging and precise guidance, EUS facilitates a range of interventional techniques. This study sought to examine the adverse events linked to EUS devices following their approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis utilizing postmarketing surveillance data sourced from the Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database. This analysis encompasses data from January 1, 2000, to August 31, 2025. Results: A total of 7608 reports detailing 8778 device-related issues and 7875 patient complications were analyzed. The most commonly reported device-related problems included peeling or delamination, with 1251 reports, followed by device breakage at 837 reports, microbial contamination at 781 reports, and inadequate cleaning at 704 reports. In terms of patient-related complications, the most frequently reported adverse events were blood loss (73 reports), tissue perforation (44 reports), and pancreatitis (32 reports). Furthermore, there were 743 documented instances of microbial contamination in EUS devices, with Conclusions: The examination of the MAUDE database reveals significant device and patient-related adverse events that endoscopists must consider during EUS procedures. Continuous postmarketing surveillance and the evaluation of real-world data are crucial for determining the safety and effectiveness of endoscopic devices, which in turn enhances patient outcomes.
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.