Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28521473›Full record

ArticleOncology letters2017

Diagnostic accuracies of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with distinct negative pressure suction techniques in solid lesions: A retrospective study.

Ronghua Wang, Jinlin Wang, Yawen Li, Yaqi Duan, Xiaoli Wu, Bin Cheng

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Oncology letters, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Strategy for esophageal non-epithelial tumors based on a retrospective analysis of a single facility.Esophagus : official journal of the Japan Esophageal Society · 2018
    Article
  5. Slow-pull capillary techniqueTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
    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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Ronghua WangDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China.
Jinlin WangDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China.
Yawen LiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China.
Yaqi DuanDepartment of Pathology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China.
Xiaoli WuDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China.
Bin ChengDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tongji Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei 430030, P.R. China.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · CNTongji Hospital · CNUniversity of Pittsburgh · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is highly accurate in obtaining specific diagnoses for various diseases. The present study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic yields, accuracies and sampling adequacies, of slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques in EUS-FNA of solid lesions. The present study was a retrospective comparative study, which was performed in tertiary academic centers, recognized for their expertise in EUS and EUS-guided FNA. The present study involved 149 patients who underwent EUS-FNA of solid masses. A total of 34 (22.8%), 37 (24.8%) and 78 (52.4%) patients underwent EUS-FNA with slow-pull, 5 ml suction and 10 ml suction techniques, respectively. The EUS-FNA cytology and histology results were compared with those from the gold standard of surgical histopathology [hematoxylin-eosin staining; immunohistochemical test of cluster of differentiation (CD) 79a, CD20 and flow cytometry test] or long-term clinical follow-up. The present retrospective comparative study demonstrated that the diagnostic yields and accuracies of EUS-FNA with slow-pull (86.1%) were significantly superior to those achieved with 5 ml suction (83.3%) or 10 ml suction (69.9%; P<0.0001; χ2 test). Consistently, 86.5% (32/37) of the samples obtained from the 5 ml suction group were adequate for histological diagnosis. By contrast, 70.6 (24/34) and 85.9% (67/78) of samples from the slow-pull and 10 ml suction groups were adequate for histological diagnosis, respectively. The samples obtained using 10 ml suction contained more blood compared with those obtained via slow-pull and 5 ml suction (P=0.0056; χ2 test). No complications were noted in any of the three groups. The samples that were obtained for histopathological diagnosis using 5 ml suction were superior to those obtained using slow-pull or 10 ml suction. Additional multi-central prospective studies in which EUS-FNA is performed with variable negative pressures are required to improve the defining of the diagnostic roles of those techniques.

Indexed as

cytologyendoscopic ultrasoundendoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspirationhigh suctionhistologysolid lesions

Identifiers

PMID28521473
PMCPMC5431385
OpenAlexW2601979416

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.