ArticlePloS one
Rapid On-Site Evaluation Does Not Improve Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Adequacy in Pancreatic Masses: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Article in PloS one. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- [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
- Endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsies of pancreatic lesions: Prospective study of histology quality using Franseen needle.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Trial
- Effect of brush rinse on the diagnostic accuracy of biliary stricture evaluation: A multicenter trial.World journal of clinical cases · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in the Management of Pancreatic Cancer.Indian journal of surgical oncology · 2024Review
- Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- EUS-FNA versus EUS-FNB in Pancreatic Solid Lesions ≤ 15 mm.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- [Challenges of cytopathological pancreas diagnostics].Pathologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Stereomicroscopic on-site evaluation in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Masses to Negate the Need for Rapid On-site Evaluation: A Randomized Control Trial.Acta medica Philippina · 2024Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey.Gut and liver · 2023Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) in the Diagnosis of Suspicious Malignant Esophageal Strictures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- Impact of rapid on-site evaluation on diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid pancreatic lesions: experience from a single center.BMC gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?DEN open · 2022Review
- Article
- The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesRapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) during endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic masses has been reported to be associated with improved adequacy and diagnostic yield. However, recent observational data on the impact of ROSE have reported conflicting results. A meta-analysis and systematic review was therefore conducted to evaluate the contribution of ROSE during EUS-FNA of pancreatic masses.
methodA systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE/Pubmed and EMBASE databases for studies comparing the efficacy of ROSE between patients in two cohorts. Outcomes considered included diagnostic adequate rate, diagnostic yield, number of needle passes, pooled sensitivity and specificity. Findings from a random-effects model were expressed as pooled risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsA total of 7 studies (1299 patients) was finally included and further analyzed in the current meta-analysis. EUS-FNA with ROSE could not improve diagnostic adequacy (RD = 0.05, 95% CI: -0.01-0.11) and diagnostic yield (RD = 0.04 95%CI: -0.05, 0.13). The number of needle passes showed no statistically significant difference with and without ROSE (RD = -0.68 95%CI: -2.35, 0.98). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of ROSE group were 0.91 (95%CI: 0.87, 0.94) and 1 (95%CI: 0.94, 1.00). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of non-ROSE group were 0.85 (95%CI: 0.80, 0.89) and 1 (95%CI: 0.95, 1.00). ROSE group and non-ROSE group showed comparable sensitivity and specificity.
conclusionCompared to historical reports of its clinical efficacy in patients with pancreatic lesions, ROSE may be not associated with an improvement of diagnostic yield, adequate rate, pooled sensitivity and specificity.
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.