ArticleHepatitis monthly2015
Comparison of Different Techniques of Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy of Liver in a Swine Model.
Article in Hepatitis monthly, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of Franseen and novel tricore needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in a porcine liver model.Scientific reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe quality of liver biopsy specimens obtained with different fine needle biopsy (FNB) techniques has not been compared.
objectivesThis study was performed to evaluate the diagnostic quality of three different liver FNB biopsy techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo sequential biopsy series were performed on piglets. Three biopsy techniques were compared: capillary-FNB, core-FNB (CFNB) and vacuum-assisted CFNB (VACFNB) in a swine model. Initially, 30 liver biopsies were performed (ten for each technique). The cellularity and quantity of blood in specimens were measured and compared. In the second series, 54 additional biopsies using CFNB and VACFNB techniques (27 each) in a separate piglet were evaluated in the same fashion.
resultsIn the first series, cellularity and blood levels were significantly lower in capillary-FNB compared with CFNB (P < 0.001 and P = 0.011, respectively). There was no significant difference between CFNB and VACFNB in cellularity and blood (P = 0.15 and P = 0.1, respectively). In the second series, cellularity was significantly higher in CFNB compared with VACFNB (P < 0.001) with no significant difference in blood (P = 0.5).
conclusionsAmong these three different FNB techniques, CFNB technique provided the greatest cellularity. Capillary-FNB technique was inferior among all with the lowest quality of obtained material for cytopathological interpretation.
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.