ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal oncology2016
Role of the preoperative usefulness of the pathological diagnosis of pancreatic diseases.
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal oncology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advances in Endoscopic Ultrasound in Pancreatic Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and Palliative Care.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Fusion Imaging Objectively Demonstrates Improved Pancreas Visualization through Manipulation Techniques: A Prospective Interventional Study.Internal medicine (Tokyo, Japan) · 2024Article
- Pancreatic Juice Cytology Evaluations Using Synthetic Secretin and Serial Pancreatic Juice Aspiration Cytological Examination for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Pancreatic Juice Cytology with Synthetic Secretin in Diagnosing Malignant Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasms of the Pancreas.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Early screening and diagnosis strategies of pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive review.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2021Review
- Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy - Recent topics and technical tips.World journal of clinical cases · 2019Review
- Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Usefulness of Endoscopic Ultrasound Processor.Yonago acta medica · 2019Article
- Proposal for Endoscopic Ultrasonography Classification for Small Pancreatic Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Recommendations of the Working Group of the Polish Pancreatic Club.Przeglad gastroenterologiczny · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death and has the lowest survival rate of any solid cancer. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy (EUS-FNA) is currently capable of providing a cytopathological diagnosis of pancreatic malignancies with a higher diagnostic power, with a sensitivity and specificity of 85%-89% and 98%-99%, compared to pancreatic juice cytology (PJC), whose sensitivity and specificity are only 33.3%-93% and 83.3%-100%. However, EUS-FNA is not effective in the cases of carcinoma in situ and minimally invasive carcinoma because both are undetectable by endoscopic ultrasonography, although PJC is able to detect them. As for the frequency of complications such as post endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography pancreatitis, EUS-FNA is safer than PJC. To diagnose pancreatic cancer appropriately, it is necessary for us to master both procedures so that we can select the best methods of sampling tissues while considering the patient's safety and condition.
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.