Endoscopic ultrasound service readiness across a provincial endoscopy network in Hubei, China: a cross-sectional institutional survey.
- 1Department of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
- 2Hubei Provincial Clinical Research Center for Digestive Disease Minimally Invasive Incision, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
- 3Engineering Research Center for Artificial Intelligence Endoscopy Interventional Treatment of Hubei Province, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, China.
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is essential for pancreatobiliary evaluation, subepithelial-lesion assessment, tumor staging, and tissue acquisition. We evaluated EUS service availability, institutional resources, and quality-indicator reporting across a provincial endoscopy network in Hubei, China. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 99 digestive endoscopy institutions from January to March 2026. Institutions were classified by administrative level and four mutually exclusive capability tiers: no EUS, miniprobe-only EUS, diagnostic radial/linear EUS without EUS-FNA, and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilson 95% confidence intervals, and exploratory univariable associations. Any EUS service was reported by 33/99 institutions (33.3%). Of these, 16 provided miniprobe-only EUS, 6 provided diagnostic radial/linear EUS without EUS-FNA, and 11 provided EUS-FNA. The diagnostic radial/linear and EUS-FNA tiers together comprised 17 institutions with radial/linear EUS capability, all of which were city-level hospitals. Median annual endoscopy volume was 1,518.5 (IQR, 309.3-4,000) in the no-EUS tier and 21,293 (IQR, 10,032-29,810.5) in the EUS-FNA tier; corresponding endoscopist counts were 4 (IQR, 2-6) and 14 (IQR, 11-19.5). The eight highest-volume institutions accounted for 81.9% of reported EUS activity. EUS completion-rate reporting was present in 30/33 EUS providers (90.9%), and EUS-FNA pathological-yield reporting in 9/11 EUS-FNA providers (81.8%). EUS services in the participating network were concentrated in city-level hospitals, with higher median annual endoscopy volume and endoscopist staffing in the higher capability tiers. These findings describe service provision within the surveyed institutions and identify questions for future evaluation of referral, training, and quality monitoring.
Related
- Comparative performance of pre- and post-endoscopic risk scores for outcome prediction in endoscopy-confirmed upper gastrointestinal bleeding in the emergency department : A retrospective single-center study
- Clinical efficacy of Delta large-channel endoscopy versus percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy in treating far lateral lumbar disc herniation: a retrospective study.
- Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy Versus Percutaneous Endoscopic Interlaminar Discectomy for Highly Migrated Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Retrospective Comparative Study With Quantitative MRI-Based Decompression Analysis.
- Biomechanical Comparison of Unilateral Biportal Endoscopy and Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy Using a Finite Element Model.
- A novel endoscopy-guided airway management strategy for lateral decubitus endoscopic procedures
BibTeX
@article{zhang2026endoscopic,
title = {{Endoscopic ultrasound service readiness across a provincial endoscopy network in Hubei, China: a cross-sectional institutional survey.}},
author = {Jun Zhang and Yanxia Li and Xu Huang and Honggang Yu},
journal = {Frontiers in medicine},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.3389/fmed.2026.1937464},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42952785},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Endoscopic ultrasound service readiness across a provincial endoscopy network in Hubei, China: a cross-sectional institutional survey.
AU - Jun Zhang
AU - Yanxia Li
AU - Xu Huang
AU - Honggang Yu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/14
JO - Frontiers in medicine
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2026.1937464
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/MED/42952785
AB - Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is essential for pancreatobiliary evaluation, subepithelial-lesion assessment, tumor staging, and tissue acquisition. We evaluated EUS service availability, institutional resources, and quality-indicator reporting across a provincial endoscopy network in Hubei, China. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 99 digestive endoscopy institutions from January to March 2026. Institutions were classified by administrative level and four mutually exclusive capability tiers: no EUS, miniprobe-only EUS, diagnostic radial/linear EUS without EUS-FNA, and EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA). Analyses included descriptive statistics, Wilson 95% confidence intervals, and exploratory univariable associations. Any EUS service was reported by 33/99 institutions (33.3%). Of these, 16 provided miniprobe-only EUS, 6 provided diagnostic radial/linear EUS without EUS-FNA, and 11 provided EUS-FNA. The diagnostic radial/linear and EUS-FNA tiers together comprised 17 institutions with radial/linear EUS capability, all of which were city-level hospitals. Median annual endoscopy volume was 1,518.5 (IQR, 309.3-4,000) in the no-EUS tier and 21,293 (IQR, 10,032-29,810.5) in the EUS-FNA tier; corresponding endoscopist counts were 4 (IQR, 2-6) and 14 (IQR, 11-19.5). The eight highest-volume institutions accounted for 81.9% of reported EUS activity. EUS completion-rate reporting was present in 30/33 EUS providers (90.9%), and EUS-FNA pathological-yield reporting in 9/11 EUS-FNA providers (81.8%). EUS services in the participating network were concentrated in city-level hospitals, with higher median annual endoscopy volume and endoscopist staffing in the higher capability tiers. These findings describe service provision within the surveyed institutions and identify questions for future evaluation of referral, training, and quality monitoring.
SN - 2296-858X
ER -