Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29409303›Full record

ArticleGut and liver2018

Slow-Pull Using a Fanning Technique Is More Useful Than the Standard Suction Technique in EUS-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses.

Jae Min Lee, Hong Sik Lee, Jong Jin Hyun, Jung Min Lee, In Kyung Yoo, Seung Han Kim, Hyuk Soon Choi, Eun Sun Kim, Bora Keum, Yeon Seok Seo and 4 more

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Gut and liver, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

14 authors.

Jae Min LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hong Sik LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jong Jin HyunDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jung Min LeeDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
In Kyung YooDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seung Han KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hyuk Soon ChoiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Eun Sun KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Bora KeumDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yeon Seok SeoDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Yoon Tae JeenDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Hoon Jai ChunDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Soon Ho UmDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Chang Duck KimDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is useful for obtaining pancreatic mass samples. The combination of modified techniques (i.e., slow-pull technique and fanning technique) may improve the quality of the sample obtained by EUS-FNA. We investigated the effectiveness of a combined slow-pull fanning technique in EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass.

methodsThis prospective comparative study investigated EUS-FNA performed for pancreatic solid masses between August 2015 and July 2016. Pairwise specimens were alternately obtained using the following two techniques for targeted pancreatic lesions: standard suction or slow-pull with fanning. We compared the specimen quality, blood contamination, and diagnostic accuracy of these techniques.

resultsForty-eight consecutive patients were included (29 men; mean age, 68.1±11.9 years), and 96 pancreatic mass specimens were obtained. The slow-pull with fanning technique had a significantly superior diagnostic accuracy than the suction technique (88% vs 71%, p=0.044). Furthermore, blood contamination was significantly reduced using the slow-pull with fanning technique (ratio of no or slight contamination, 77% vs 56%, p=0.041). No difference was observed in the acquisition of adequate cellularity between the groups. In the subgroup analysis, the tumor size and sampling technique were related to the EUS-FNA diagnostic accuracy.

conclusionsThe slow-pull with needle fanning technique showed a good diagnostic yield for EUS-FNA for pancreatic mass. This technique can be useful for performing EUS-guided sampling for diagnosing pancreatic disease.

Indexed as

AgedEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPancreatic NeoplasmsProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySuctionBiopsy, fine-needleEndosonographyPancreasTechnique

Identifiers

PMID29409303
PMCPMC5945268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.