https://www.selleckchem.com/products/ku-0060648.html 000), pancreatic duct opacification (86% vs 25%, p less then 0.000) and stent placement (73% vs 20%, p less then 0.000). An EUS-guided approach also appeared superior with regard to clinical outcomes such a pain resolution. The adverse event rate between the two treatment modalities could not be compared due to insufficient data. All included studies were found to be of low quality. Conclusion Based on limited available data, EUS-guided PD intervention appears superior to ERP-guided PD intervention.Background The adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an indicator for quality colonoscopy. However, many missed adenomas have been found in colonoscopies performed by endoscopists with an ADR ≥25%. Adenomas per positive participant (APP) correlates well with the adenoma miss rate. This study aimed to evaluate whether APP added additional information on the detection rate for advanced adenomas (AADR) and proximal adenomas (pADR) and among endoscopists with acceptable ADRs (≥25%). Methods A total of 47 endoscopists performed 7,339 screening colonoscopies that were retrospectively reviewed. Using a cutoff APP value of 2.0, endoscopist performance was classified into a high APP group and a low APP group. Endoscopist performance was also classified as acceptable ADR (25-29%), high-standard ADR (30-39%) and aspirational ADR (≥40%). Generalized linear models were used to assess the relationship between AADR and pADR, and ADR, after adjusting for potential confounders. Results After adjusting for endoscopist performance and patient characteristics, endoscopists with high APP had a significant 2.1% increase AADR (95% CI, 0.3% - 3.9%; p=0.02) and 2.1% increase pADR (95% CI, -0.8% - 5.1%; p=0.15) when compared to endoscopists with low APP. Eleven (24%), 18 (38%) and 18 (38%) endoscopists were classified as having acceptable ADRs, high-standard ADRs and aspirational ADRs, respectively. Eighteen percent of acceptable ADRs, 44% of high-sta