Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24949409›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound2014

Basic techniques in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration for solid lesions: Adverse events and avoiding them.

Larissa L Fujii, Michael J Levy

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Risk Factors for Acute Pancreatitis after Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Biopsy.The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2018
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Larissa L FujiiMayo Clinic, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 200 1 St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Michael J LevyMayo Clinic, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 200 1 St. SW, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
WinnMed · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is often the preferred technique for tissue acquisition in the diagnosis of suspected intrathoracic and intraabdominal pathology. Although EUS FNA is a safe and accurate procedure, it has been associated with a low risk of adverse events. The unique properties of the echoendoscope and its ability to acquire tissue outside of the gastrointestinal lumen impart risks that are not associated with routine endoscopic procedures. In this review, we discuss the risk of perforation related to the echoendoscope itself and adverse events related to FNA of solid masses including infections, bleeding, pancreatitis and pancreatic duct leak, bile duct leak and tumor seeding. We also provide tips on how to avoid the most common adverse events related to EUS-FNA.

Indexed as

Bleedinginfectionpancreatitisperforation

Identifiers

PMID24949409
PMCPMC4063261
OpenAlexW2062028561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.