ArticleJournal of ultrasound2019
A clinical compilation of lymph node pathologies comparing the diagnostic performance of biopsy methods.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal (TEP) approach for pelvic and iliac lymph node biopsy: a single-centre experience.Surgical endoscopy · 2026Article
- Performance of Culture Using a Semi-Automatic Needle as a Novel Tool for Collecting Lymph Node Samples for the Diagnosis of Canine Visceral Leishmaniasis.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value and safety of modified needle aspiration biopsy for superficial lymphadenectasis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient magnetic resonance imaging (ADC-MRI) in the axillary breast cancer lymph node metastasis detection: a narrative review.Gland surgery · 2020Review
- Comparative study of core needle biopsy and fine needle aspiration in the treatment of metastatic lymph nodes guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeIt is critical to obtain sufficient tissue, both in quality and quantity, in biopsy applications for histopathological review. Our aim was to compare fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) and core needle biopsy (CNB) techniques in terms of their diagnostic performance in lymph node biopsies. This was a clinical compilation, and histopathological results from biopsies were also evaluated.
methodsA total of 242 patients and 246 lymph nodes were prospectively evaluated. All histopathologic specimens were obtained through ultrasonography-guided biopsies performed at our institute between April 2015 and October 2017. Histopathological results were grouped according to diagnostic performance, and the mean performance scores of the two methods were compared.
resultsFor FNAC, the mean diagnostic score was calculated to be 1.63, whereas for CNB, the mean diagnostic score was calculated to be 1.89. The difference between diagnostic scores of the two techniques was statistically significant (p < 0.01).
conclusionWe recommend that interventional radiologists perform vacuum-assisted biopsies if there are no financial hindrances or evidence of psychological issues in patients. We recommend this not only for lymph nodes of malignant appearance but also for those that appear benign.
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.