Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2018
A prospective randomized trial of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle with and without a stylet.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy with Stylet and Suction Versus No Stylet No Suction for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Non-Pancreatic Lesions.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- Use of suction during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with a Franseen-tip needle: a pilot comparative trial.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Endoscopic ultrasonography in pancreatic diseases: advances in tissue acquisition.Endoscopy international open · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition has become the most effective method of obtaining specimens from a solid lesion adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract. No data exist regarding the use of a stylet in the core biopsy needle during EUS-guided tissue acquisition. The aims of this study were to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and diagnostic yield of a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without (S-) a stylet and to compare its performance with that of a 25-gauge core biopsy needle with (S+) a stylet in patients with solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract.
methodsFrom November 2013 to January 2016, we performed 114 EUS-guided tissue acquisitions for the diagnosis of solid lesions adjacent to the gastrointestinal tract in a randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned to the S+ group (n = 57) or the S- group (n = 57). EUS-guided tissue acquisition was performed using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without an on-site cytopathologist.
resultsThere were no significant differences in technical success (100 vs. 100%, p = 1.000), the mean number of needle passes (7.0 ± 1.6 vs. 6.8 ± 1.5, p = 0.556), needle malfunction (0 vs. 1.8%, p = 1.000), or complications (1.8 vs. 0%, p = 1.000) between the S+ and S- groups. Both groups exhibited comparable outcomes with respect to cytological diagnostic accuracy (93.0 vs. 91.2%, p = 1.000) and histological diagnostic accuracy (86.0 vs. 87.7%, p = 1.000) for malignancy. The procedure time was significantly shorter in the S- group than in the S+ group (32.4 ± 11.7 vs. 39.7 ± 8.6 min, p < 0.001).
conclusionsEUS-guided tissue acquisition using a 25-gauge core biopsy needle without a stylet did not decrease the diagnostic yield for malignancy and was associated with a shorter procedure time than that associated with a stylet.
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.