4.1 Article

South Korean endoscopists' attitudes toward endoscopic ultrasound for the evaluation of gastrointestinal diseases

Journal

TURKISH JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 25, Issue 1, Pages 63-69

Publisher

AVES
DOI: 10.5152/tjg.2014.5412

Keywords

Attitude; endoscopic ultrasound; neoplasms

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background/Aims: Despite the common use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) for various gastrointestinal diseases in Asia, little is known about Asian endoscopists' attitudes toward the practice. The aim of our study was to provide a profile of Korean endoscopists' attitudes toward EUS use. Materials and Methods: Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to endoscopists who attended the 4th EndoFest symposium of the Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy on March 24, 2012. We evaluated opinions on the need for EUS for assessing gastrointestinal diseases and the perceived barriers to widespread EUS use. Results: Data from 214 (32.4%) responders were analyzed. Positive opinions (agree plus strongly agree) were given on the need for EUS in the evaluation of the following gastrointestinal diseases were: subepithelial tumor (94.9%), early esophageal cancer (88.8%), early gastric cancer (86%), pancreatic cancer (84.1%), early rectal cancer (83.6%), gallbladder polyp (73.4%), advanced esophageal cancer (47.7%), colon cancer (32.2%), advanced gastric cancer (31.8%), and advanced rectal cancer (28.5%). Significant differences were observed when they were asked about the need for EUS with respect to early versus advanced cancers of the esophagus, stomach, and rectum (all p<0.001). The most commonly cited barrier to widespread use of EUS was lack of experienced endosonographers (66.2%). Conclusion: This is the first study to assess Korean attitudes toward using EUS for evaluating gastrointestinal diseases. Korean endoscopists highly value the use of EUS in the evaluation of early esophageal, gastric, and rectal cancers, as well as subepithelial lesions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available