Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27227104›Full record

ArticleEndoscopy international open2016

A randomized controlled cross-over trial and cost analysis comparing endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration and fine needle biopsy.

A Aziz Aadam, Sachin Wani, Ashley Amick, Janak N Shah, Yasser M Bhat, Christopher M Hamerski, Jason B Klapman, V Raman Muthusamy, Rabindra R Watson, Alfred W Rademaker and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopy international open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04841616 (Multicentered Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial On Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04841616 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Multicentered Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial On Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound (CH_EUS) Vs Conventional EUS-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) For Solid Pancreatic Lesions

TypeinterventionalSponsorChinese University of Hong KongRan2021 to 2025Enrolled128ConditionsPancreas NeoplasmArmsEndoscopic Ultrasound -Guided Fine Needle Biopsy, Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Endo-hepatology: Bridging the gap between lumen and liver.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of clinical cases · 2021
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

14 authors.

A Aziz AadamDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Sachin WaniDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, United States.
Ashley AmickDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Janak N ShahPaul May and Frank Stein Interventional Endoscopy Center, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, United States.
Yasser M BhatPaul May and Frank Stein Interventional Endoscopy Center, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, United States.
Christopher M HamerskiPaul May and Frank Stein Interventional Endoscopy Center, California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco, California, United States.
Jason B KlapmanDivision of Gastroenterology, Moffitt Cancer Center, Tampa, Florida, United States.
V Raman MuthusamyDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States.
Rabindra R WatsonDivision of Digestive Diseases, Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, United States.
Alfred W RademakerDepartment of Preventative Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Rajesh N KeswaniDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Laurie KeeferDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States.
Ananya DasArizona Digestive Health, Gilbert, Arizona, United States.
Srinadh KomanduriDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States.

Funding

Tumor Environment and Metastasis (TEAM) Research ProgramP30CA060553 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Daniela E Matei · 1993 to 2026
$153.9M
Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Science Institute (NUCATS)UL1TR001422 · NCATS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI D'AQUILA, RICHARD · 2015 to 2023
$56.8M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001422NCI NIH HHS P30 CA060553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY

aimsTechniques to optimize endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) in a variety of lesion types have not yet been established. The primary aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic yield (DY) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) to endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for pancreatic and non-pancreatic masses. PATIENTS AND

methodsConsecutive patients referred for EUS-TA underwent randomization to EUS-FNA or EUS-FNB at four tertiary-care medical centers. A maximum of three passes were allowed for the initial method of EUS-TA and patients were crossed over to the other arm based on on-site specimen adequacy.

resultsA total of 140 patients were enrolled. The overall DY was significantly higher with specimens obtained by EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA (90.0 % vs. 67.1 %, P = 0.002). While there was no difference in the DY between the two groups for pancreatic masses (FNB: 91.7 % vs. FNA: 78.4 %, P = 0.19), the DY of EUS-FNB was higher than the EUS-FNA for non-pancreatic lesions (88.2 % vs. 54.5 %, P = 0.006). Specimen adequacy was higher for EUS-FNB compared to EUS-FNA for all lesions (P = 0.006). There was a significant rescue effect of crossover from failed FNA to FNB in 27 out of 28 cases (96.5 %, P = 0.0003). Decision analysis showed that the strategy of EUS-FNB was cost saving compared to EUS-FNA over a wide range of cost and outcome probabilities.

conclusionsRESULTS of this RCT and decision analysis demonstrate superior DY and specimen adequacy for solid mass lesions sampled by EUS-FNB.

Identifiers

PMID27227104
PMCPMC4874800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.