Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28700483›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2017

Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration versus endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy in sampling pancreatic masses: A meta-analysis.

Jing Wang, Shulei Zhao, Yong Chen, Ruzhen Jia, Xiaohua Zhang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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.

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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Application of a novel endoscopic ultrasound-guided motorized fine needle for liver and pancreatic lesion biopsy.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of clinical cases · 2021
    Article
  17. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Jing WangDepartment of Infectious Diseases Department of Gastroenterology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China.
Shulei Zhao
Yong Chen
Ruzhen Jia
Xiaohua Zhang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe comparison between endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) for the diagnosis of pancreatic masses is still controversial. Many factors can affect the final results.

methodsDatabases, such as PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Science Citation Index updated from 2000 to 2016 were searched to include eligible articles. In the meta-analysis, the main outcome measurements were the diagnostic accuracy, number of needle passes, specimen adequacy, the rate of complications, and technical success.

resultsEight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, and a total of 921 cases were included in the meta-analysis. The diagnostic accuracy was not significantly different between the FNA and FNB groups. The specimen adequacy was higher in the FNB group compared with the FNA group. The number of needle passes to obtain sufficient tissue was lower in the FNB group. The rate of adverse events and technical success did not significantly differ between the 2 groups. But, the forest plot showed a trend toward lower technical success rate and a trend toward higher diagnostic accuracy in the FNB group, compared with FNA.

conclusionWe provide the evidence that FNB is comparable to FNA in terms of diagnostic accuracy, adverse events, and technical success. FNB gives higher specimen adequacy than that of FNA, despite performance of fewer needle passes.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationHumansPancreatic NeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID28700483
PMCPMC5515755

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-SA
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.