ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2015
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for the diagnosis of kidney lesions: A review.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic accuracy of image-guided biopsies in small (<4 cm) renal masses with implications for active surveillance: a systematic review of the evidence.The British journal of radiology · 2018Pooled it
- Endonephrology: Evolving Techniques of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosing Renal Lymphoma.ACG case reports journal · 2025Article
- Cytological Diagnosis by Fine-Needle Aspiration or Core Biopsy with Touch Preparation for Renal Cystic or Solid Lesions: A Single-Center Clinicopathological Analysis.Acta cytologica · 2025Article
- Prospective histological evaluation of a 20G core trap with a forward-cutting bevel needle for EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
- Reality named endoscopic ultrasound biliary drainage.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditionally, treatment of renal lesions is indicated based only on imaging features. Although controversy exists about tissue sampling from small renal masses, renal biopsy is indicated in some cases. In this review, we discuss the rationale for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and summarize the recent advances in this field, providing recommendations for the practicing clinician. The use of EUS-FNA appears to be a safe and feasible means of confirming or excluding malignancy. EUS allows assessment and biopsy of masses or lesions within both kidneys and related complications are rare. The main advantages of EUS-FNA are that it can be done as an outpatient procedure, with good results, minimal morbidity and a short hospital stay. Nevertheless, EUS-FNA of renal masses should be indicated only in selected cases, in which there is potential to decrease unnecessary treatment of small renal masses and to best select tumors for active surveillance and minimally invasive ablative therapies. Additionally, some renal lesions may be ineligible for EUS-guided biopsy because of anatomical limitations. EUS-FNA renal biopsy will probably be best applied to central anterior renal masses, while tumors on the posterior aspect of the kidney, percutaneous access will probably be superior.
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.