ArticleMinimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy2018
Comparison of biliary brush biopsy and fine needle biopsy in the diagnosis of biliary strictures.
Article in Minimally invasive therapy & allied technologies : MITAT : official journal of the Society for Minimally Invasive Therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genetic Uncertainties Fueling Cholangiocarcinoma Progression.Current genomics · 2025Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Diagnosis of Gallbladder Mixed Neuroendocrine Non-Neuroendocrine Tumor With an Anomalous Pancreaticobiliary Junction.ACG case reports journal · 2024Article
- Treatment of Malignant Bile Duct Obstruction: What the Interventional Radiologist Needs to Know.Seminars in interventional radiology · 2021Review
- Intraductal Tissue Sampling Device Designed for the Biliary Tract.IEEE journal of translational engineering in health and medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of percutaneous fine needle biopsy (FNB) and brush biopsy (BB) at a cancer center. MATERIAL AND
methodsRetrospective analysis of all bile duct biopsies performed in Interventional Radiology between January 2000 and January 2015 was performed. FNB was performed under real-time cholangiographic guidance using a notched needle directed at the bile duct stricture. BB was performed by advancing a brush across the stricture and moving it back and forth to scrape the stricture. Biopsy results were categorized as true positive (TP), true negative (TN), false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) based on pathology reports and confirmed by surgical specimens or clinical follow-up of at least six months. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the rate of TP in FNB and BB.
resultsOne-hundred and nineteen patients underwent FNB or BB. Fifteen were censored because of lack of follow-up. The remaining 104 patients underwent a total of 117 bile duct biopsies during the study period: 34 FNB and 83 BB. There were no complications in either group. In the FNB group 22/34 (64%) biopsies were TP, 4/34(12%) were TN and there were 8(24%) FN biopsies. In the BB group, 20/83 (24%) were TP, 38/83 (46%) TN and 25/83 (30%) FN biopsies. There were no FP biopsies in either group. The sensitivity of detecting malignancy by FNB was significantly higher than that by BB (73% vs 44%, p < .0005). There were no complications associated with FNB or BB.
conclusionsFNB of bile duct strictures is safe and has a higher sensitivity for detecting malignancy than BB.
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.