Resumo Os rankings acadêmicos (RACs), apesar de receberem muitos questionamentos, vem se destacando como um instrumento de avaliação externa de apoio para a tomada de decisões das universidades y de diferentes grupos de interesse. Este artigo tem como objetivo analisar e mapear – em termos de metodologias adotadas, formas de seleção de universidades e fontes de informação – os RACs chilenos, em uma ótica comparativa com os mais destacados rankings internacionais. Realiza-se uma pesquisa exploratória, analítico-descritiva e comparativa. Para tanto, se utilizam fontes secundarias de informação, por meio da revisão de bases de dados, páginas web e artigos científicos (pesquisa bibliográfica e documental), classificando-se os RACs estudados a partir das especificidades dos dados por eles utilizados. Pode-se concluir que as principais diferenças existentes entre os rankings internacionais e os chilenos não passam tanto pelos critérios a serem avaliados, mas pela especificidade dos pesos dados aos indicadores adotados. Cada ranking apresenta um conceito próprio de qualidade, no existindo um consenso entre eles.

Abstract Academic rankings (ARs), despite receiving many questionings, have been highlighted as an external evaluation tool to support decision-making by universities and different interest groups. This article aims to analyze and map – in terms of methodologies adopted, forms of university selection and sources of information – the Chilean ARs, in a comparative perspective with the most outstanding international rankings. An exploratory, analytical-descriptive and comparative research is carried out. To do so, secondary sources of information are used, through the revision of databases, web pages and scientific articles (bibliographic and documentary research), classifying the ARs studied from the specificities of the data used by them. It can be concluded that the main differences between the international and Chilean rankings do not go through the criteria to be evaluated, but rather due to the specificity of the weights given to the indicators adopted. Each ranking has its own concept of quality, and there is no consensus among them.

Resumen Los rankings académicos (RACs), a pesar de recibir muchos cuestionamientos, se vienen destacando como un instrumento de evaluación externa de apoyo para la toma de decisiones de las universidades y de diferentes grupos de interés. Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar y mapear – en términos de metodologías adoptadas, formas de selección de universidades y fuentes de información – los RACs chilenos, en una óptica comparativa con los más destacados rankings internacionales. Se realiza una investigación exploratoria, analítico-descriptiva y comparativa. Para ello, se utilizan fuentes secundarias, por medio de revisión de bases de datos, páginas web y artículos científicos (investigación bibliográfica y documental), clasificándose los RACs estudiados a partir de las especificidades de los datos por ellos utilizados. Se puede concluir que las principales diferencias existentes entre los rankings internacionales y los chilenos no pasan tanto por los criterios a evaluar, sino por la especificidad de los pesos dados a los indicadores adoptados. Cada ranking presenta un concepto propio de calidad, no existiendo un consenso entre ellos.

Background: Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) is an effective but time-consuming treatment for early neoplasia that requires a high level of expertise. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy and learning curve of gastric ESD with a hybrid knife with high-pressure water jet and to compare with standard ESD. Material and methods: We performed a prospective non-survival animal study comparing hybrid-knife and standard gastric ESD. Variables recorded were: Number of en-bloc ESD, number of ESD with all marks included (R0), size of specimens, time and speed of dissection and adverse events. Ten endoscopists performed a total of 50 gastric ESD (30 hybrid-knife and 20 standard). Results: Forty-six (92%) ESD were en-bloc and 25 (50%) R0 (hybrid-knife: n = 13, 44%; standard: n = 16, 80%; p = 0.04). Hybrid-knife ESD was faster than standard (time: 44.6 ± 21.4 minutes vs. 68.7 ± 33.5 minutes; p = 0.009 and velocity: 20.8 ± 9.2 mm²/min vs. 14.3 ± 9.3 mm²/min (p = 0.079). Adverse events were not different. There was no change in speed with any of two techniques (hybrid-knife: From 20.33 ± 15.68 to 28.18 ± 20.07 mm²/min; p = 0.615 and standard: From 6.4 ± 0.3 to 19.48 ± 19.21 mm²/min; p = 0.607). The learning curve showed a significant improvement in R0 rate in the hybrid-knife group (from 30% to 100%). Conclusion: despite the initial performance of hybrid-knife ESD is worse than standard ESD, the learning curve with hybrid-knife ESD is short and is associated with a rapid improvement. The introduction of new tools to facilitate ESD should be implemented with caution in order to avoid a negative impact on the results.

Lung cancer is one of the most frequent neoplasms in our environment, and represents the first cause of cancer related death in western countries. Diagnostic and therapeutic approach to these patients may be complicated, with endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), classically performed by gastroenterologists, playing a very important role. As this disease is not closely related to the "digestive tract", gastroenterologists have been forced to update their knowledge on this field o adequately diagnose this significant group of patients. The recent advent of modern and promising techniques like endobronchial ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EBUS-FNA) have prompted new approaches for diagnosis and staging of this type of patients. In this clinical guideline, the "Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva" (SEED), "Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva" (SEPD) and the "Asociación Española de Gastroenterología", have jointed efforts to update the existing knowledge on the field and provide their members with evidence based recommendations.

El cáncer de pulmón es una de las neoplasias más frecuentes en nuestro medio y la principal causa de muerte por cáncer en países occidentales. El manejo diagnóstico y terapéutico de estos pacientes es complejo, desempeñando en el mismo un papel muy relevante la punción guiada por ultrasonografía endoscópica (USE-PAAF), que clásicamente realizan los gastroenterólogos. Al tratarse de una enfermedad no relacionada con el "aparato digestivo", los gastroenterólogos han tenido que actualizar sus conocimientos en este campo, para diagnosticar de forma adecuada a este nutrido grupo de pacientes. La incorporación en estos últimos años de nuevas y prometedoras técnicas, como la punción aspirativa transbronquial guiada por ecobroncoscopia (USEB-PAAF), han modificado el acercamiento al diagnóstico y estadificación de estos pacientes. En la presente guía clínica, la Sociedad Española de Endoscopia Digestiva (SEED), la Sociedad Española de Patología Digestiva (SEPD) y la Asociación Española de Gastroenterología (AEG), han aunado esfuerzos para actualizar el grado de conocimiento existente sobre este tema y dar recomendaciones basadas en la evidencia a sus miembros.