Validation of a real-time biliopancreatic endoscopic ultrasonography analytical device in China: a prospective, single-centre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) is a key procedure for the diagnosis of biliopancreatic diseases. However, the performance among EUS endoscopists varies greatly and leads to blind spots during the operation, which can impair the health outcomes of patients. We previously developed an artificial intelligence (AI) device that accurately identified EUS standard stations and significantly reduced the difficulty of ultrasonography image interpretation. In this study, we updated the device (named EUS-IREAD) and validated its performance in improving the quality of EUS procedures. METHODS: In this single-centre, randomised, controlled trial, we updated EUS-IREAD so it consisted of five learning models to identify eight EUS stations and 24 anatomical structures. The trial was done at the Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University (Wuhan, China) and included patients aged 18 years or older with suspected biliopancreatic (pancreas and biliopancreatic duct) lesions due to clinical symptoms, radiological findings, or laboratory findings, and with a high risk of pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a dedicated research assistant using a computer-generated random number series (with a block size of four) to undergo the EUS procedure with or without the assistance of EUS-IREAD. Endoscopists in the EUS-IREAD-assisted group were required to observe all standard stations and anatomical structures according to the prompts by the AI device. Data collectors, the independent data anaylsis team, and patients were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was the missed scanning rate of standard stations between the two groups, which was assessed in patients who underwent EUS procedure in accordance with the assigned intervention (per protocol). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05457101. FINDINGS: Between July 9, 2022, and Feb 28, 2023, 290 patients (mean age 55·93 years [SD 14·06], 152 [52%] male, and 138 [48%] female) were randomly assigned and analysed, including 144 in the EUS-IREAD-assisted group and 146 in the control group. The EUS-IREAD-assisted group had a lower missed scanning rate of stations than the control group (4·5% [SD 0·8] vs 14·3% [1·0], -9·8% [95% CI -12·2 to -7·5]; odds ratio 3·6 [95% Cl 2·6 to 4·9]; p<0·0001). No significant adverse event was found during the study. INTERPRETATION: Our study confirms the capability of EUS-IREAD to monitor the blind spots and reduce the missed rate of stations and structures during EUS procedures. The EUS-IREAD has the potential to play an essential part in EUS quality control. FUNDING: Innovation Team Project of Health Commission of Hubei Province and College-enterprise Deepening Reform Project of Wuhan University.

Preoperative automatic reminder systems and impact on quality and compliance with colonoscopy preparation: A multicenter randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Traditional preoperative reminding services have been applied to enhance the quality of bowel preparation for colonoscopy. In this study we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of an automated electronic reminder system (E-reminder) on improving bowel preparation and the quality of preoperative education before colonoscopy. METHODS: From August 2021 to March 2022, 833 outpatients aged 50-75 years who underwent colonoscopy were included and randomly assigned to the E-reminder group and the control group. While the control group received routine preoperative education. The E-reminder group received automatic phone call, text message reminders and web services regarding the details of bowel preparation before the colonoscopic examination. The quality of bowel preparation was evaluated by the Boston Bowel Preparation Scale (BBPS) score and the previously validated objective evaluation scale of automatic BBPS (e-BBPS). RESULTS: In manual assessment, the rate of adequate bowel preparation was improved in the E-reminder group of intention-to-treat population using BBPS (60.7% vs 54.5%, P = 0.01). The percentage of objective evaluated adequate bowel preparation using e-BBPS in the E-reminder group of per-protocol population was significantly higher than that in the control group (76.9% vs 69.2%, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: E-reminder was an effective tool to improve the quality of bowel preparation and compliance with medical instructions. It may be regarded as an efficient and convenient education tool, improving the quality of medical service.

Evidence Based Social Science in China Paper 4 : The quality of social science systematic reviews and meta-analysis published from 2000-2019.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the characteristics, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social science journals in China. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analysis published between January 2000 and December 2019. We randomly selected 200 articles from the 401 identified in our search. The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklists were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality, respectively. RESULTS: The 200 articles we selected covered a wide range of research fields in 9 disciplines, most of which belonged to management, education and psychology. The mean AMSTAR score and PRISMA score was 8.99 ± 3.36 points and 14.74 ± 3.96 points, respectively. These findings indicated that the quality of the systematic reviews was below the average level. Meanwhile, year of publication was related to both methodological quality (P = 0.001) and reporting quality (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Although many systematic reviews and meta-analysis have been published in top Chinese journals, the methodological and reporting quality is troubling. Thus, the most urgent task is to increase the standard of systematic reviews and meta-analysis of every discipline rather than continuing to publish them in great quantity.