Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30377133›Full record

ArticleNan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University2018

[Value of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration in pretest prediction and diagnosis of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma].

Liquan Wu, Wen Guo, Yue Li, Tianming Cheng, Yongli Yao, Yali Zhang, Bixuan Liu, Muxiao Zhong, Sinan Li, Xiujin Deng and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Liquan WuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Wen GuoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Yue LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Tianming ChengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Yongli YaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Yali ZhangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Bixuan LiuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Muxiao ZhongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Sinan LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Xiujin DengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Wei ZhuDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Southern Medical University · CNNanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify the predictive factors for differentiating pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) from other neoplastic solid pancreatic lesions and assess the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of PDAC.

methodsWe retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients referred for EUS-FNA evaluation of pancreatic lesions in the Digestive Endoscopic Center of Nanfang Hospital between January, 2009 and May, 2016. The cases with unknown diagnosis, missing data, repeated punctures, cystic lesions and benign lesions were excluded from the analysis. The positivity rates of EUS-FNA were compared between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of EUS-FNA were assessed in the diagnosis of PDAC. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify the factors for differentiating PDAC from non-PDAC lesions based on the demographic characteristics, clinical presentations, laboratory data, and endoscopic ultrasonography imaging features of the patients.

resultsAmong the 75 patients with solid neoplastic pancreatic lesions, 54 (72.0%) were found to have PDAC and 21 (28.0%) had non-PDAC lesions. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of PDAC were 77.8%, 100.0%, 100.0%, 63.6% and 84.0%, respectively. No significant difference was found in the positivity rate of EUS-FNA between patients with PDAC and those with non-PDAC lesions (77.8%

conclusionsThe pretest characteristics including abdominal pain, evidence of metastases, and lesion size and lesion characteristics defined by endoscopic ultrasonography findings can reliably predict a diagnosis of PDAC. EUS-FNA has a high sensitivity and a high specificity for the diagnosis of PDAC.

Indexed as

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationCarcinoma, Pancreatic DuctalDiagnosis, DifferentialEndosonographyHumansPancreasPancreatic NeoplasmsRegression AnalysisRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificitySymptom Assessmentendoscopic ultrasonographyfine needle aspirationneoplastic solid pancreatic lesionspancreatic ductal adenocarcinomapredictive diagnosis

Identifiers

PMID30377133
PMCPMC6744051
OpenAlexW3024921877

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.