Department of Gastroenterology, Peking Union Medical College Hospital
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, 100730, China
NCT Number: NCT04161950
The primary objective for this study is to compare the safety and validity of two endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) systems (GF-UE260-ME2 and EG-UR5-S50) used for clinical performance and establish a relative EUS performance assessment system and clinical case data to provide support for the product performance improvement.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me18 year–70 year
All sexes
Observational
Beijing, Beijing Municipality, 100730, China
This research is a random, opening and parallel-controlled clinical test. Tested device model: The EG-UR5 ultrasonic endoscope manufactured by SonoSscope Medical Crop. That used with the HD-500 image processor, HDL-500X light source and S50Exp ultrasonic color doppler instrument .
Compared device model: The GF-UE260-ME2 ultrasonic endoscope manufactured by Olympus and its compatible light source, image processor and ultrasonic instrument.
To scientifically compare the clinical performances of the test model and the compared model, the enrolled objects would be randomly distributed to the tested group and the compared group to conducted the examination with the tested model and the compared model respectively.
EUS will be performed in the standard fashion by one of the experienced endosonographers in the unit. Once the EUS is complete, the procedure will be stopped and the echoendoscope withdrawn from the patient.
The data are recorded in the CRF, including patient information, clinical assessment for the usage of the endoscope and device operation, thus to perform a comprehensive assessment whether the safety and validity of this product can meet the clinical requirements.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
Time frame: up to 2 months
Check Points for Ultrasonic Image Esophagus, stomach, cholecyst, bile duct, pancreas and portal vein system Ultrasonic image quality Assessment standards Assess the ultrasonic image quality of all judgment points according to the ranking degree: excellent, well, bad. Only the assessment of all organs are excellent, the ultrasonic image quality is excellent. If one or more than one assessments are good, the ultrasonic image quality is good. If one or more than one assessments are bad, the ultrasonic image quality is bad.
The comparison of the image qualities of the tested model and compared model is verified by the non-inferior validation method and the boundary is 10%, and the confidence interval rate differential is 95%.
Time frame: up to 2 months
Check Points for endoscopic Image Esophagus, proximal stomach, stomach body,gastric angle,antrum and duodenal bulb.
Assess the ultrasonic image quality of all judgment points according to the ranking degree: excellent, well, bad. Only the assessment of all observed points are excellent, the endoscopic image quality is excellent. If one or more than one observation points are good, the endoscopic image quality is good. If one or more than one observation points are bad, the endoscopic image quality is bad.
The comparison of the image qualities of the tested model and compared model is verified by the non-inferior validation method and the boundary is 10%, and the confidence interval rate differential is 95%.
Time frame: up to 2 months
The good ration of the device controllability is computed to assess the performance of the ultrasonic endoscope and the target value is more than 98%.
Time frame: up to 2 months
Judge the device safety according to the system safety adverse events and the target rate (the estimate value) of the events is 0.
Time frame: up to 2 months
Judge the device stability according to the system stability adverse events and the target rate (the estimate value) of the events is less than 5%.
Peking Union Medical College Hospital
Other
Prospective Comparison of Two EUS System for Clinical Performance
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT01316614
Biopsy, Fine-Needle/Methods, Biopsy, Fine-needle
St Louis, Missouri, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT07627594
Acute Exacerbation, Bronchoalveolar Lavage (BAL)
Paris, France
View Trial Details