Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29404729›Full record

Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018

Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study.

Li Tian, An-Liu Tang, Lei Zhang, Xiao-Wen Liu, Jing-Bo Li, Fen Wang, Shou-Rong Shen, Xiao-Yan Wang

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. EUS FNAC without rapid on-site evaluation is comparable to EUS FNB with macroscopic on-site evaluation in evaluation of intra-abdominal masses.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Observational
  7. Diagnostic yield and safety of pancreatic cystic lesions: A comparison between EUSZhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of clinical cases · 2021
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Li TianDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
An-Liu TangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Lei ZhangXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xiao-Wen LiuXiangya School of Medicine, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Jing-Bo LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Fen WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Shou-Rong ShenDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, Hunan, China.
Xiao-Yan WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, The Third Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 138 Tongzipo Road, Changsha, Hunan, China. wxy20011@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions.

methodsBetween April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated.

resultsThe procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P  <  0.05).

conclusions22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA.

Indexed as

AgedEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeedlesOutcome Assessment, Health CarePancreasPancreatic DiseasesProspective StudiesPancreatic solid lesionUltrasound-guided fine-needle aspirationUltrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy

Identifiers

PMID29404729
PMCPMC6061052

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.