ArticleEndoscopy international open2018
Endoscopic ultrasound guided needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in solid pancreatic masses - a prospective validation study.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Confocal laser endomicroscopy in gastro-intestinal endoscopy: technical aspects and clinical applications.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Review
- SAGES TAVAC safety and efficacy analysis confocal laser endomicroscopy.Surgical endoscopy · 2021Review
- Morphometric Assessment of Confocal Laser Endomicroscopy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma, an Ex-Vivo Pilot Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Current Status of Endoscopic Ultrasound Techniques for Pancreatic Neoplasms.Clinical endoscopy · 2019Article
- Recent advancement in EUS-guided fine needle sampling.Journal of gastroenterology · 2019Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND STUDY
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a keystone in diagnosing and staging of pancreatic masses. Recently, a microfiber that can pass through a 19-gauge needle has been introduced for confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE). The aims of this study were to evaluate the diagnostic value and the reproducibility of nCLE criteria for solid malignant lesions. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis prospective dual-center study included patients with pancreatic masses suspicious of malignancy referred for EUS-FNA. Endomicroscopic imaging was performed under EUS-guidance until organ-specific structures were obtained. Afterwards, standard cytology was obtained and patients were followed for up to 12 months. All nCLE parameters included in former studies were correlated with the final diagnosis (dark lobular structures/normal acinar cells, dark cell aggregates > 40 µm, dilated irregular vessels with fluorescein leakage, fine white fibrous bands, small black cell movements, pseudoglandular structures). Finally, three CLE novices and three CLE experts assessed the unedited movies from all patients.
resultsTwenty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. A final diagnosis was obtained in 24 patients (86 %). One patient (3 %) died before a diagnosis was obtained, while 3 were lost to follow-up (11 %). In 18/24 patients (74 %) the diagnosis was malignant. The mean sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the nCLE parameters ranged from 19 - 93 %, 0 - 56 %, 26 - 69 %, respectively. The inter-observer values ranged from κ = 0.20 - 0.41 for novices and κ = -0.02 - 0.38 for experts.
conclusionsThe diagnostic value of nCLE in solid pancreatic masses is questionable and the inter-observer agreement for both novices and CLE experts appears limited.
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.