Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26960914›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2016

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignant lesions: a systematic review and Meta-Analysis.

Yongtao Yang, Lianyong Li, Changmin Qu, Shuwen Liang, Bolun Zeng, Zhiwen Luo

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 78 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Case Report: Pancreatic toxoplasmosis: role of endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparison of standardWorld journal of methodology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yongtao YangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China.
Lianyong LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China.
Changmin QuDepartment of Gastroenterology, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China.
Shuwen LiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China.
Bolun ZengDepartment of Gastroenterology, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China.
Zhiwen LuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, The 306th Hospital of PLA, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China.
PLA 306 Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle core biopsy (EUS-FNB) has been used as an effective method of diagnosing pancreatic malignant lesions. It has the advantage of providing well preserved tissue for histologic grading and subsequent molecular biological analysis. In order to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB for pancreatic malignant lesions, studies assessing EUS-FNB to diagnose solid pancreatic masses were selected via Medline. Sixteen articles published between 2005 and 2015, covering 828 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The summary estimates for EUS-FNB differentiating malignant from benign solid pancreatic masses were: sensitivity 0.84 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-0.87); specificity 0.98 (95% CI, 0.93-1.00); positive likelihood ratio 8.0 (95% CI 4.5-14.4); negative likelihood ratio 0.17 (95% CI 0.10-0.26); and DOR 64 (95% CI 30.4-134.8). The area under the sROC curve was 0.96. Subgroup analysis did not identify other factors that could substantially affect the diagnostic accuracy, such as the study design, location of study, number of centers, location of lesion, whether or not a cytopathologist was present, and so on. EUS-FNB is a reliable diagnostic tool for solid pancreatic masses and should be especially considered for pathology where histologic morphology is preferred for diagnosis.

Indexed as

Biopsy, Fine-NeedleEndosonographyHumansPancreatic Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID26960914
PMCPMC4785370
OpenAlexW2293929295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.