ArticleEndoscopy international open2015
A prospective randomized study of the difference in diagnostic yield between endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUSFNA) needles with and without a side port in pancreatic masses.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02092519 (A Prospective Multi-center Randomized Study of the Difference in Diagnostic Yield Between EUSFNA Needles With and Without a Side Port in Pancreatic Masses), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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.
A Prospective Multi-center Randomized Study of the Difference in Diagnostic Yield Between EUSFNA Needles With and Without a Side Port in Pancreatic Masses
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy].The Korean journal of gastroenterology = Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe chi · 2021Guideline
- Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).Gut and liver · 2021Guideline
- A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2018Pooled it
- Avoid non-diagnostic EUS-FNA: a DNN model as a possible gatekeeper to distinguish pancreatic lesions prone to inconclusive biopsy.The British journal of radiology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition by EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB for solid pancreatic mass without ROSE: a retrospective study.World journal of surgical oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical and Technical Guideline for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Solid Tumor: Korean Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (KSGE).Clinical endoscopy · 2021Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic masses: the fine needle aspiration or fine needle biopsy dilemma. Is the best needle yet to come?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2019Review
- Diagnostic Endoscopic Ultrasound: Technique, Current Status and Future Directions.Gut and liver · 2018Review
- Leiomyosarcoma Involving the Pancreas Diagnosed by Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration.Journal of gastrointestinal cancer · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsTwo 22G needles with similar designs, apart from the absence (A) or presence of a side port (B), are available for endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (FNA). The side port was designed to increase diagnostic yield but this advantage was unproven. This study evaluated the difference in diagnostic yield between both needles in pancreatic masses. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a prospective multicenter randomized cross-over study. Patients with pancreatic masses were randomized to one needle for the first two passes, followed by the other for the next two passes. A pathologist blinded to the needle assessed each puncture for cellularity and morphology. The diagnostic yield between both needles was compared.
resultsIn total, 30 patients were recruited (mean lesion size: 3.5 cm, range: 1.2 - 6.3). Comparison of cellularity adequacy: first pass: A vs. B: 26/30 vs. 24/30 (P = 0.488): 2nd pass: A vs. B: 25/30 vs. 26/30 (P = 0.718). Comparison of diagnostic accuracy: first pass: A vs. B: 22/30 vs. 23/30 (P = 0.766); after two passes: A vs. B: 26/30 vs. 26/30 (P = 1.0). When all four passes were assessed, adequate cellularity was obtained in 29/30 and the correct diagnosis was obtained in 28/30 patients. There were no procedural complications.
conclusionsThere was no significant difference in diagnostic yield between EUSFNA needles with or without a side port for pancreatic masses. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT02092519.
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.