22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses
AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the le...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of gastroenterology : WJG 2016-10, Vol.22 (39), p.8820-8830 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 8830 |
---|---|
container_issue | 39 |
container_start_page | 8820 |
container_title | World journal of gastroenterology : WJG |
container_volume | 22 |
creator | Sterlacci, William Sioulas, Athanasios D Veits, Lothar Gönüllü, Pervin Schachschal, Guido Groth, Stefan Anders, Mario Kontos, Christos K Topalidis, Theodoros Hinsch, Andrea Vieth, Michael Rösch, Thomas Denzer, Ulrike W |
description | AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge(G) AN(Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22 G PC(Echo Tip Pro Core; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.RESULTS Fifty six consecutive patients(29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions(n = 38), lymphadenopathy(n = 13), submucosal tumors(n = 4), or others lesions(n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy(AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy(AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes(AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications(none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36(64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.CONCLUSION Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle. |
doi_str_mv | 10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5075557</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><cqvip_id>90888889504849545157484955</cqvip_id><sourcerecordid>1837028712</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8b28cedfbdf8020925b89bc6d91f6f6074617349178c70e6f4c09d5ab72a234c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVkc2PFCEQxYnRuOPq3ZPh6KXHooAGLiZm41eyiRc9ExroXjbd0NtMj_G_t8cdJ8qlCPXq1Qs_Ql4z2HMl9Luf98P-iLhP3Oy1RnhCdojMNKgFPCU7BqAaw1FdkRe13gMg5xKfkytUmmlp9I4kxGZw6xCpL0ukx0ovD67OaXGHVDLNMYYx0r4sNOZQqi9z8nQdD4urZc2hGdYUYqDVTfOY8kBLT10XypSyG-nkao31JXnWu7HGV-d6TX58-vj95ktz--3z15sPt40XAg6N7lD7GPou9BoQDMpOm863wbC-7VtQomWKC8OU9gpi2wsPJkjXKXTIhefX5P2j77x2Uww-5i3laOclTW75ZYtL9v9OTnd2KEcrQUkp1Wbw9mywlIc11oOdUvVxHF2OZa2Waa4AtWK4SeFR6pdS6xL7yxoG9kTIboTsRshuhOyJ0Dby5t94l4G_SDYBP3velTw8bL950RjQp2MkCC2MFJJJ9ecm-W-tjp7N</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1837028712</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Baishideng "World Journal of" online journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Sterlacci, William ; Sioulas, Athanasios D ; Veits, Lothar ; Gönüllü, Pervin ; Schachschal, Guido ; Groth, Stefan ; Anders, Mario ; Kontos, Christos K ; Topalidis, Theodoros ; Hinsch, Andrea ; Vieth, Michael ; Rösch, Thomas ; Denzer, Ulrike W</creator><creatorcontrib>Sterlacci, William ; Sioulas, Athanasios D ; Veits, Lothar ; Gönüllü, Pervin ; Schachschal, Guido ; Groth, Stefan ; Anders, Mario ; Kontos, Christos K ; Topalidis, Theodoros ; Hinsch, Andrea ; Vieth, Michael ; Rösch, Thomas ; Denzer, Ulrike W</creatorcontrib><description>AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge(G) AN(Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22 G PC(Echo Tip Pro Core; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.RESULTS Fifty six consecutive patients(29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions(n = 38), lymphadenopathy(n = 13), submucosal tumors(n = 4), or others lesions(n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy(AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy(AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes(AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications(none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36(64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.CONCLUSION Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1007-9327</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2219-2840</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27818598</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - instrumentation ; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - methods ; Endosonography - instrumentation ; Endosonography - methods ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Needles ; Pancreas - pathology ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology ; Prospective Studies ; Randomized Clinical Trial ; Specimen Handling - methods ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>World journal of gastroenterology : WJG, 2016-10, Vol.22 (39), p.8820-8830</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2016. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. 2016</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8b28cedfbdf8020925b89bc6d91f6f6074617349178c70e6f4c09d5ab72a234c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8b28cedfbdf8020925b89bc6d91f6f6074617349178c70e6f4c09d5ab72a234c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Uhttp://image.cqvip.com/vip1000/qk/84123X/84123X.jpg</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075557/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5075557/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,881,27901,27902,53766,53768</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27818598$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sterlacci, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sioulas, Athanasios D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veits, Lothar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gönüllü, Pervin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schachschal, Guido</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groth, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anders, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kontos, Christos K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Topalidis, Theodoros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinsch, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieth, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rösch, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Denzer, Ulrike W</creatorcontrib><title>22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses</title><title>World journal of gastroenterology : WJG</title><addtitle>World Journal of Gastroenterology</addtitle><description>AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge(G) AN(Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22 G PC(Echo Tip Pro Core; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.RESULTS Fifty six consecutive patients(29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions(n = 38), lymphadenopathy(n = 13), submucosal tumors(n = 4), or others lesions(n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy(AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy(AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes(AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications(none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36(64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.CONCLUSION Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - instrumentation</subject><subject>Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - methods</subject><subject>Endosonography - instrumentation</subject><subject>Endosonography - methods</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Needles</subject><subject>Pancreas - pathology</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Randomized Clinical Trial</subject><subject>Specimen Handling - methods</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>1007-9327</issn><issn>2219-2840</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVkc2PFCEQxYnRuOPq3ZPh6KXHooAGLiZm41eyiRc9ExroXjbd0NtMj_G_t8cdJ8qlCPXq1Qs_Ql4z2HMl9Luf98P-iLhP3Oy1RnhCdojMNKgFPCU7BqAaw1FdkRe13gMg5xKfkytUmmlp9I4kxGZw6xCpL0ukx0ovD67OaXGHVDLNMYYx0r4sNOZQqi9z8nQdD4urZc2hGdYUYqDVTfOY8kBLT10XypSyG-nkao31JXnWu7HGV-d6TX58-vj95ktz--3z15sPt40XAg6N7lD7GPou9BoQDMpOm863wbC-7VtQomWKC8OU9gpi2wsPJkjXKXTIhefX5P2j77x2Uww-5i3laOclTW75ZYtL9v9OTnd2KEcrQUkp1Wbw9mywlIc11oOdUvVxHF2OZa2Waa4AtWK4SeFR6pdS6xL7yxoG9kTIboTsRshuhOyJ0Dby5t94l4G_SDYBP3velTw8bL950RjQp2MkCC2MFJJJ9ecm-W-tjp7N</recordid><startdate>20161021</startdate><enddate>20161021</enddate><creator>Sterlacci, William</creator><creator>Sioulas, Athanasios D</creator><creator>Veits, Lothar</creator><creator>Gönüllü, Pervin</creator><creator>Schachschal, Guido</creator><creator>Groth, Stefan</creator><creator>Anders, Mario</creator><creator>Kontos, Christos K</creator><creator>Topalidis, Theodoros</creator><creator>Hinsch, Andrea</creator><creator>Vieth, Michael</creator><creator>Rösch, Thomas</creator><creator>Denzer, Ulrike W</creator><general>Baishideng Publishing Group Inc</general><scope>2RA</scope><scope>92L</scope><scope>CQIGP</scope><scope>~WA</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20161021</creationdate><title>22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses</title><author>Sterlacci, William ; Sioulas, Athanasios D ; Veits, Lothar ; Gönüllü, Pervin ; Schachschal, Guido ; Groth, Stefan ; Anders, Mario ; Kontos, Christos K ; Topalidis, Theodoros ; Hinsch, Andrea ; Vieth, Michael ; Rösch, Thomas ; Denzer, Ulrike W</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c440t-8b28cedfbdf8020925b89bc6d91f6f6074617349178c70e6f4c09d5ab72a234c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - instrumentation</topic><topic>Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - methods</topic><topic>Endosonography - instrumentation</topic><topic>Endosonography - methods</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Needles</topic><topic>Pancreas - pathology</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Randomized Clinical Trial</topic><topic>Specimen Handling - methods</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sterlacci, William</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sioulas, Athanasios D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Veits, Lothar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gönüllü, Pervin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Schachschal, Guido</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Groth, Stefan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Anders, Mario</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kontos, Christos K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Topalidis, Theodoros</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hinsch, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vieth, Michael</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rösch, Thomas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Denzer, Ulrike W</creatorcontrib><collection>中文科技期刊数据库</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-CALIS站点</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库-7.0平台</collection><collection>中文科技期刊数据库- 镜像站点</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>World journal of gastroenterology : WJG</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sterlacci, William</au><au>Sioulas, Athanasios D</au><au>Veits, Lothar</au><au>Gönüllü, Pervin</au><au>Schachschal, Guido</au><au>Groth, Stefan</au><au>Anders, Mario</au><au>Kontos, Christos K</au><au>Topalidis, Theodoros</au><au>Hinsch, Andrea</au><au>Vieth, Michael</au><au>Rösch, Thomas</au><au>Denzer, Ulrike W</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses</atitle><jtitle>World journal of gastroenterology : WJG</jtitle><addtitle>World Journal of Gastroenterology</addtitle><date>2016-10-21</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>22</volume><issue>39</issue><spage>8820</spage><epage>8830</epage><pages>8820-8830</pages><issn>1007-9327</issn><eissn>2219-2840</eissn><abstract>AIM To compare the aspiration needle(AN) and core biopsy needle(PC) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration(EUS-FNA) of abdominal masses.METHODS Consecutive patients referred for EUS-FNA were included in this prospective single-center trial. Each patient underwent a puncture of the lesion with both standard 22-gauge(G) AN(Echo Tip Ultra; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) and the novel 22 G PC(Echo Tip Pro Core; Cook Medical, Bloomington, Indiana, United States) in a randomized fashion; histology was attempted in the PC group only. The main study endpoint was the overall diagnostic accuracy, including the contribution of histology to the final diagnosis. Secondary outcome measures included material adequacy, number of needle passes, and complications.RESULTS Fifty six consecutive patients(29 men; mean age 68 years) with pancreatic lesions(n = 38), lymphadenopathy(n = 13), submucosal tumors(n = 4), or others lesions(n = 1) underwent EUS-FNA using both of the needles in a randomized order. AN and PC reached similar overall results for diagnostic accuracy(AN: 88.9 vs PC: 96.1, P = 0.25), specimen adequacy(AN: 96.4% vs PC: 91.1%, P = 0.38), mean number of passes(AN: 1.5 vs PC: 1.7, P = 0.14), mean cellularity score(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.1, P = 0.058), and complications(none). A diagnosis on the basis of histology was achieved in the PC group in 36(64.3%) patients, and in 2 of those as the sole modality. In patients with available histology the mean cellularity score was higher for AN(AN: 1.7 vs PC: 1.0, P = 0.034); no other differences were of statistical significance.CONCLUSION Both needles achieved high overall diagnostic yields and similar performance characteristics for cytological diagnosis; histological analysis was only possible in 2/3 of cases with the new needle.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Baishideng Publishing Group Inc</pub><pmid>27818598</pmid><doi>10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820</doi><tpages>11</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1007-9327 |
ispartof | World journal of gastroenterology : WJG, 2016-10, Vol.22 (39), p.8820-8830 |
issn | 1007-9327 2219-2840 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5075557 |
source | MEDLINE; Baishideng "World Journal of" online journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - instrumentation Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration - methods Endosonography - instrumentation Endosonography - methods Female Humans Male Middle Aged Needles Pancreas - pathology Pancreatic Neoplasms - diagnosis Pancreatic Neoplasms - pathology Prospective Studies Randomized Clinical Trial Specimen Handling - methods Young Adult |
title | 22-gauge core vs 22-gauge aspiration needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of abdominal masses |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T18%3A04%3A55IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=22-gauge%20core%20vs%2022-gauge%20aspiration%20needle%20for%20endoscopic%20ultrasound-guided%20sampling%20of%20abdominal%20masses&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20gastroenterology%20:%20WJG&rft.au=Sterlacci,%20William&rft.date=2016-10-21&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=39&rft.spage=8820&rft.epage=8830&rft.pages=8820-8830&rft.issn=1007-9327&rft.eissn=2219-2840&rft_id=info:doi/10.3748/wjg.v22.i39.8820&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1837028712%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1837028712&rft_id=info:pmid/27818598&rft_cqvip_id=90888889504849545157484955&rfr_iscdi=true |