marginal significanceP =.056
The reintervention rate was lower in the EASL group than in the conventional EUS‐BD; however, the difference showed marginal significance (hazard ratio 0.242, 95% CI 0.057‐1.035; P =.056) (Table 3 ).
The reintervention rate was lower in the EASL group than in the conventional EUS‐BD; however, the difference showed marginal significance (hazard ratio 0.242, 95% CI 0.057‐1.035; P =.056) (Table 3 ).