Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29464585›Full record

Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2018

A 19-Gauge Histology Needle Versus a 19-Gauge Standard Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Solid Lesions: A Multicenter Randomized Comparison Study (GREATER Study).

Takuji Iwashita, Yousuke Nakai, Tsuyoshi Mukai, Osamu Togawa, Saburo Matsubara, Yuichiro Hatano, Akira Hara, Mariko Tanaka, Junji Shibahara, Masashi Fukayama and 2 more

Abstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Takuji IwashitaFirst Department of Internal Medicine, Gifu University Hospital, 1-1 Yanagido, Gifu, 501-1194, Japan. takuji@w7.dion.ne.jp.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4978-1787
Yousuke NakaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Tsuyoshi MukaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Gifu Municipal Hospital, Gifu, Japan.
Osamu TogawaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Kanto Central Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Saburo MatsubaraDepartment of Gastroenterology, Tokyo Metropolitan Police Hospital, Tokyo, Japan.
Yuichiro HatanoDepartment of Tumor Pathology, Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan.
Akira HaraDepartment of Tumor Pathology, Gifu University Graduate School of Medicine, Gifu, Japan.
Mariko TanakaDepartment of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Junji ShibaharaDepartment of Pathology, Kyorin University Faculty of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Masashi FukayamaDepartment of Pathology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki IsayamaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Ichiro YasudaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Teikyo University Mizonokuchi Hospital, Kawasaki, Japan.
The University of Tokyo · JPGifu University · JPGifu Municipal Hospital · JPGifu University Hospital · JPKanto Central Hospital · JPKyorin University · JPTeikyo University · JPTokyo Metropolitan Police Hospital · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe necessity of histological analysis is increasing. A 19-gauge histology needle (PC19) in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has recently been developed and has shown high yields of tissue acquisition and histological diagnosis.

aimsTo compare the histological diagnostic yield in single-pass EUS-FNA for solid lesions using PC19 and a standard 19-gauge needle (EC19). PATIENTS AND

methodsConsecutive patients with solid lesions were enrolled and underwent one pass with each of PC19 and EC19 for EUS-FNA with the randomized order of the needles. The primary endpoint was the histological diagnostic accuracy. The secondary endpoints were the feasibility, yield of histological core, cytological and overall diagnostic accuracies, and adverse events. Subgroup analysis was performed for the optimal situation with PC19.

resultsOf the 115 patients, 110 underwent EUS-FNA and five were excluded. EUS-FNA was performed from the esophagus in four, stomach in 80, or duodenum in 26. The final diagnosis was malignancy in 100 and benign in 10. The feasibility was 98.2 and 97.3% with PC19 and EC19, respectively (p = 1.00). The rate of presence of a histological core and the histological, cytological, and overall diagnostic accuracies for PC19 versus EC19 were 84.6 versus 80.9% (p = 0.593), 83.6 versus 73.6% (p = 0.099), 63.6 versus 56.4% (p = 0.335), and 90.0 versus 79.1% (p = 0.039), respectively. PC19 was favored in the trans-esophageal/gastric approaches to obtain a histological diagnosis (p = 0.013). Adverse events were observed in four patients.

conclusionSingle-pass EUS-FNA with PC19 was feasible and showed significantly higher overall diagnostic accuracy and an increased tendency towards histological diagnostic accuracy, especially with trans-esophageal/gastric FNA.

Indexed as

NeedlesAgedDuodenal NeoplasmsEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationEsophageal NeoplasmsFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesReproducibility of ResultsStomach NeoplasmsEndoscopic ultrasoundHistologyProCoreReversed bevel

Identifiers

PMID29464585
OpenAlexW2791830635

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.