Patient satisfaction after MRCP and ERCP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is an accurate diagnostic test for detecting abnormalities of the pancreaticobiliary system. Because it is noninvasive, MRCP appears to be more tolerable than ERCP, although this has not been studied. The purpose of this study is to compare patient satisfaction after MRCP and ERCP performed sequentially. METHODS: We prospectively recruited 34 patients undergoing ERCP, for whom an MRCP was able to be performed before ERCP. Patient satisfaction was assessed by validated questionnaires using seven-point Likhert scales (individual ratings and direct comparisons). The following dimensions were explored: anxiety, pain, discomfort, tolerability (relative to expectations), willingness to repeat the procedure, and overall preference. Chi2 and Student's t tests (paired and unpaired) were performed, and 95% CIs were provided. RESULTS: Two patients (5.9%) were unable to undergo MRCP because of claustrophobia. The remaining 32 completed both tests (94% same day) and all questionnaires. Average age was 56+/-18 yr, and 66% were women. In 23 patients, some degree of biliary obstruction was suspected; nine patients had pancreatitis. Patients reported a lower degree of pain (p < 0.001) and discomfort (p = 0.047) with MRCP, but MRCP was more difficult than they expected (p = 0.0 12). Patients were marginally more willing to repeat MRCP (ns, p = 0.09). On direct comparisons, patients were more satisfied with MRCP regarding anxiety (p = 0.04) and pain (p = 0.001). Patients displayed a higher overall preference for MRCP compared with ERCP (p = 0.01); however, only 59% clearly preferred MRCP over ERCP. The most common problem with MRCP was claustrophobia or noise (n = 15), and the differences were more striking in the subgroup without this problem. The subgroup undergoing purely diagnostic ERCPs showed clear preferences for MRCP. CONCLUSIONS: In many respects, MRCP is well tolerated, and certain subgroups, especially those undergoing diagnostic ERCPs, prefer MRCP over ERCP. As an endoscopist, one needs to be aware of the limitations of MRCP and relay these to the patient, as it seems that patients find MRCP more difficult than anticipated, and a significant number still prefer ERCP over MRCP. Patient satisfaction may be further improved by reducing noise and claustrophobia with selective premedication, earplugs, and the use of the new quieter fenestrated magnetic resonance imaging scanners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".