ReviewWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2018
Concise review on the comparative efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration
Review in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Explainable Machine Learning for Detecting Pancreatic Cancer from Structured Endoscopic Ultrasound Data: A Retrospective Multicenter Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Performance of EUS-FNB in solid pancreatic masses: a lesson from 463 consecutive procedures and a practical nomogram.Updates in surgery · 2022Article
- Deconvolution microscopy: A platform for rapid on-site evaluation of fine needle aspiration specimens that enables recovery of the sample.Cytopathology : official journal of the British Society for Clinical Cytology · 2022Article
- Solid Pseudopapillary Neoplasm of the Pancreas: Unfolding an Intriguing Condition.GE Portuguese journal of gastroenterology · 2022Review
- Special Issue "The Next Generation of Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy".Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- EUS-FNA Biopsies to Guide Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Pilot Study to IdentifyFrontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling versus FNA in the diagnosis of subepithelial lesions: a large multicenter study.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration with or without biopsy (FNA/FNB) are the primary diagnostic tools for gastrointestinal submucosal tumors. EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is considered a first line diagnostic method for the characterization of pancreatic and upper gastrointestinal lesions, since it allows for the direct visualization of the collection of specimens for cytopathologic analysis. EUS-FNA is most effective and accurate when immediate cytologic assessment is permitted by the presence of a cytopathologist on site. Unfortunately, the accuracy and thus the diagnostic yield of collected specimens suffer without this immediate analysis. Recently, a EUS-FNB needle capable of obtaining core samples (fine needle biopsy, FNB) has been developed and has shown promising results. This new tool adds a new dimension to the diagnostic and therapeutic utility of this technique. The aim of the present review is to compare the efficacy of EUS-FNA to that afforded by EUS-FNB in the characterization of pancreatic masses and of upper and lower gastrointestinal submucosal tumors.
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.