ArticleWorld journal of gastroenterology2014
Endoscopic ultrasound and paracentesis in the evaluation of small volume ascites in patients with intra-abdominal malignancies.
Article in World journal of gastroenterology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endo-hepatology: Bridging the gap between lumen and liver.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Review
- Endosonography-guided drainage of loculated malignant ascites using double-pigtail plastic stents.Endoscopy international open · 2018Article
- The borderline resectable/locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: EUS oriented.Endoscopic ultrasound · 2017Article
- Difficulties in differentiating the nature of ascites based on ultrasound imaging.Journal of ultrasonography · 2017Article
- EUS-guided paracentesis and ascitic fluid analysis.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Diagnostic and interventional EUS in hepatology: An updated review.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of ascites in patients with known or suspected malignancy is a critical aspect of preoperative staging. Endoscopic evaluation by ultrasound of low volume ascites and sampling of the ascitic fluid by endoscopic ultrasound guided paracentesis (EUS-P) is both a sensitive and specific modality for the determination of peritoneal implants, which is not only an important prognostic indicator but a crucial factor in determining treatment strategy. It is common practice to utilize EUS for gastrointestinal malignancies such as pancreatic or gastric masses, with the performance of paracentesis during the same procedure for the purpose of imaging the abnormality and possibly performing fine needle aspiration for biopsy of the neoplasm itself. However, given the ability of EUS-P to adequately sample even minimal ascites, detecting much smaller volumes than traditional computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging, EUS-P may be a useful modality for the standard metastatic workup of any newly diagnosed or suspected malignancy. In this "Field of Vision" commentary, we discuss the role of EUS-P, including the article by Suzuki et al reporting their experience with EUS-P using an automated spring-loaded needle device. We also review the utility of EUS-P for non-gastrointestinal malignancies, such as ovarian cancer, which has a high incidence of malignant ascites.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.