Avoidable stent placement between groups I and II by endoscopist
| Endoscopist | Group I | Group II | P value | ||||
| First ERCP (n=598) | F/U ERCP (n=244) | Total (n=842) | First ERCP (n=661) | F/U ERCP (n=224) | Total (n=885) | ||
| 1 | 44/144 | 13/73 | 57/217 | 4/109 | 3/22 | 7/131 | 0.02 |
| 2 | 11/141 | 1/61 | 12/202 | 2/170 | 3/48 | 5/218 | 10.38 |
| 3 | 5/98 | 1/49 | 6/147 | 5/111 | 3/58 | 8/169 | 74.95 |
| 4 | 2/9 | 0/2 | 2/11 | 2/93 | 1/41 | 3/134 | 0.04* |
| 5 | 1/129 | 1/36 | 2/165 | 0/105 | 0/21 | 0/126 | 4.37 |
| 6 | 0/77 | 0/23 | 0/100 | 0/73 | 0/34 | 0/107 | ns†|
| Total | 63/598 | 16/244 | 79/842 | 13/661 | 10/224 | 23/885 | |
*Endoscopist #4 had just been recruited shortly before the end of the chart audit for group 1, thereby explaining the small number of cases. Therefore, even though the p value=0.04, it is likely because of the extremely small sample size in group 1 and is not valid.
†Endoscopist #6 had no inappropriate stent placements in either group I or II, and therefore the p value could not be computed.
ERCP, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography ; F/U, follow-up.