Role of endoscopic ultrasound in evaluation of patients with missed common bile duct stones

Table 5 Differences in endoscopic skill between expert and non-expert endoscopists

CBD stones detected by EUS	Total (n = 90)					Non-expert (n = 27)		Expert (n = 63)
	n				%	n	%	n	%
No	15				16.7	11	40.7	4	6.3
Yes	75				83.3	16	59.3	59	93.7
Number
No.	20				22.2	14	51.9	6	9.5
1	42				46.7	8	29.6	34	54.0
2	12				13.3	2	7.4	10	15.9
3	5				5.6	0	0.0	5	7.9
4	1				1.1	0	0.0	1	1.6
5	1				1.1	0	0.0	1	1.6
6	1				1.1	0	0.0	1	1.6
Multiple	8				8.9	3	11.1	5	7.9
Size (mm)
No.	22				24.4	14	51.9	8	12.7
≤ 5	25				27.8	4	14.8	21	33.3
> 5	43				47.8	9	33.3	34	54.0
Other findings of EUS
No	65				72.2	14	51.9	51	81.0
Yes	25				27.8	13	48.1	12	19.0
	ERCP findings				Sensitivity	Specificity	PPV	NPV	Accuracy
	No		Yes
	n	%	n	%
Total sample (n = 90)	n = 23		n = 67
No	14	60.9	1	1.5
Yes	9	39.1	66	98.5	98.51	60.87	88.0	93.33	88.89
FEP value	43.464 (< 0.001)
Non-expert (n = 27)	n = 13		n = 14
No	10	76.9	1	7.1
Yes	3	23.1	13	92.9	92.86	76.92	81.25	90.91	85.19
FEP value	13.595 (< 0.001)
Expert (n = 63)	n = 10		n = 53
No	4	40.0	0	0.0
Yes	6	60.0	53	100.0	100.0	40.0	89.83	100.0	90.48
FEP value	22.637 (< 0.001)

PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; EUS: Endoscopic ultrasound; MRCP: Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography; ERCP: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography.