MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient satisfaction after MRCP and ERCP

2001· article· en· W1986943718 on OpenAlex
Krishna Menon, Alan Barkun, Joseph Romagnuolo, Gad Friedman, Shailesh N. Mehta, Caroline Reinhold, P M Bret

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGallbladder and Bile Duct Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMagnetic resonance cholangiopancreatographyPatient satisfactionPancreatitisAnxietyTolerabilityMagnetic resonance imagingInternal medicineRadiologyEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographySurgeryAdverse effectPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it