Clinical research is essential for the practice of evidence-based medicine. This study reports on our current practice of clinical research support in Mito Kyodo General Hospital and discusses future challenges. In April 2013, the University of Tsukuba hired a clinical research assistant to provide clinical research support in Mito Kyodo General Hospital. The clinical research assistant worked full-time in the hospital in collaboration with 3 university faculty members. The target population for this study comprised 450 medical personnel including doctors, nurses, and other medical staff. From April 2014, 1 of the 3 faculty members visited the hospital once a month to offer clinical research consultations and deliver a lecture on nursing research. We analyzed past records of clinical research support and conducted a questionnaire survey to explore the level of satisfaction of the medical personnel. Four-hundred and ninety records of 91 research topics proposed by 68 medical personnel were identified. Of these, 93.4% were proposed by doctors or nurses. Most studies employed an observational study design (64.8%) and were conducted in order to make a presentation at an academic conference (51.1%). The consultation sessions were held 1–5 times, for 40–405 min, and lasted from 1–84 days per research topic. Consultations mostly pertained to research design and protocol planning (57.1%). Forty-seven clients were invited to participate in the questionnaire survey, 30 of whom provided valid responses. The results showed that 96.6% of the clients were satisfied with the consultations. The number of clients who participated in the consultations comprised only 15.1% of the target population. These practice biases need to be addressed in future. However, nearly all respondents were satisfied with the consultations. These findings suggest that our clinical research support was beneficial to medical personnel.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the diagnostic yield of 20-gauge forward-bevel core biopsy needle (CBN) and 22-gauge needle for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) of solid pancreatic masses. METHODS: The use of 20-gauge CBN was prospectively evaluated for 50 patients who underwent EUS-FNA from June 2016 to December 2016. Data were compared with those obtained by a retrospective study of 50 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNA using standard 22-gauge needles between December 2016 and April 2017. At least two punctures were performed for each patient; the sample from the first pass was used for cytology with or without histology and that from the second pass was used for histology. Sample quantity was evaluated using the sample obtained from the second pass. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the diagnostic accuracy rate between the first and second passes (20-gauge CBN: 96% [48/50]; standard 22-gauge needle: 88% [44/50]). Samples >10× power fields in length were obtained from 90% (43/48) and 60% (30/50) of patients using the 20-gauge CBN and standard 22-gauge needle, respectively (p=0.01). Technical failure occurred for two patients with the 20-gauge CBN. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnostic accuracy of the 20-gauge CBN was comparable to that of the 22-gauge needle. However, two passes with the 20-gauge CBN yielded a correct diagnosis for 100% of patients when technically feasible. Moreover, the 20-gauge CBN yielded core tissue for 90% patients, which was a performance superior to that of the 22-gauge needle.
Biopsy ; Biopsy, Fine-Needle ; Diagnosis ; Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration ; Humans ; Needles ; Pancreas ; Prospective Studies ; Punctures ; Retrospective Studies ; Ultrasonography

Background/Aims: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) contribute to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, the causes of EMDs and their impact on gastroesophageal reflux disease-associated symptoms remain unknown. This study aims to elucidate clinical features associated with various types of EMDs in patients with heartburn symptoms. Methods: Of the 511 patients who underwent high-resolution manometry, 394 who were evaluated for heartburn symptoms were examined. Patients subjected to high-resolution manometry were classified into 4 groups: outflow obstruction group, hypermotility group, hypomotility group, and normal motility group. Symptoms were evaluated using 3 questionnaires. Patient characteristics and symptoms for each EMD type were compared with those of the normal motility group. Results: Of the 394 patients, 193 (48.9%) were diagnosed with EMDs, including 71 with outflow obstruction, 15 with hypermotility, and 107 with hypomotility. The mean dysphagia score was significantly higher in each of the 3 EMD groups compared with those with normal motility. The mean acid reflux and dyspepsia scores were significantly lower in the outflow obstruction group (P < 0.05). The mean body mass index and median Brinkman index were significantly higher in the hypermotility group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively), whereas the mean diarrhea and constipation scores were significantly lower in the hypomotility group (P < 0.05). Conclusions The results of our study indicate that different EMDs have distinct characteristics. Cigarette smoking and high body mass index were associated with esophageal hypermotility. Assessment of the dysphagia symptom scores may help identify patients with EMDs.

Background/Aims: Esophageal motility disorders (EMDs) contribute to the pathophysiology of gastroesophageal reflux disease. However, the causes of EMDs and their impact on gastroesophageal reflux disease-associated symptoms remain unknown. This study aims to elucidate clinical features associated with various types of EMDs in patients with heartburn symptoms. Methods: Of the 511 patients who underwent high-resolution manometry, 394 who were evaluated for heartburn symptoms were examined. Patients subjected to high-resolution manometry were classified into 4 groups: outflow obstruction group, hypermotility group, hypomotility group, and normal motility group. Symptoms were evaluated using 3 questionnaires. Patient characteristics and symptoms for each EMD type were compared with those of the normal motility group. Results: Of the 394 patients, 193 (48.9%) were diagnosed with EMDs, including 71 with outflow obstruction, 15 with hypermotility, and 107 with hypomotility. The mean dysphagia score was significantly higher in each of the 3 EMD groups compared with those with normal motility. The mean acid reflux and dyspepsia scores were significantly lower in the outflow obstruction group (P < 0.05). The mean body mass index and median Brinkman index were significantly higher in the hypermotility group (P = 0.001 and P = 0.018, respectively), whereas the mean diarrhea and constipation scores were significantly lower in the hypomotility group (P < 0.05). Conclusions The results of our study indicate that different EMDs have distinct characteristics. Cigarette smoking and high body mass index were associated with esophageal hypermotility. Assessment of the dysphagia symptom scores may help identify patients with EMDs.