Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22752601›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2012

Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesion: a systematic review.

Jiong Chen, Renbao Yang, Yin Lu, Yunlian Xia, Hangcheng Zhou

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 180 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The clinical usefulness of optical coherence tomography during cancer interventions.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Imaging modalities for characterising focal pancreatic lesions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Observational
  8. A Definite Step Toward Clinical Implementation of AI-Assisted Rapid On-Site Evaluation During EUS-TA.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2026
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Diagnostic value of endoscopic ultrasound in staging of pancreatic cancer.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2025
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jiong ChenDepartment of General Surgery, Affiliated Provincial Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, China. ch_jiong@126.com
Renbao Yang
Yin Lu
Yunlian Xia
Hangcheng Zhou
Anhui Medical University · CNAnhui Provincial Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo summarize EUS-FNA test performance in suspected pancreatic malignancy with meta-analysis.

methodTwo reviewers searched MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid from January 2002 to January 2012) database to identify relevant studies. The reference lists of the trials were manually searched. Included studies used histopathology or clinical and morphological (CT and MRI and US) follow-up as the "gold standard" and provided sufficient data to construct a diagnostic 2 × 2 table. A statistical program of Meta-Disc was used to calculate the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, negative LR, DOR, and the SROC curve. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were calculated to evaluate potential sources of heterogeneity.

resultA total of 15 studies with 1860 patients were included for the analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of EUS-FNA were 92 % (95 % CI = 91-93 %, p < 0.001, I (2) = 69.6 %) and 96 % (95 % CI = 93-98 %, p = 0.006, I (2) = 54.9 %), respectively. The positive LR and negative LR were 14.24 (95 % CI = 7.78-26.07) and 0.09 (95 % CI = 0.07-0.13), respectively. The area under the curve was 0.974. The subgroup analysis of six studies with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a pooled sensitivity of 95 % (95 % CI = 93-96 %), with p value equal 0.622 and I (2) = 0. The sensitivity analysis of ten high-quality studies (a score of ≥4) showed a pooled sensitivity of 94 % (95 % CI = 93-96 %, p = 0.144, I (2) = 33.1 %), and the pooled specificity was 0.95 (95 % CI, 0.91-0.97).

conclusionEUS-FNA had overall excellent specificity and sensitivity in accurately diagnosing solid pancreatic masses. ROSE could help to improve the accuracy of diagnostic test.

Indexed as

Biopsy, Fine-NeedleEndosonographyHumansPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID22752601
PMCPMC11824158
OpenAlexW2093055339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.