ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound
Comparison between 22G aspiration and 22G biopsy needles for EUS-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis.
Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy With Simplified Macroscopic On-site Evaluation (With Video).DEN open · 2027Article
- Minimally Invasive Sampling Techniques for Pancreatic and Pulmonary Nodules: A Review of the Evolution of Guidance and Sampling Methods.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Review
- Single pancreatic and multiple hepatic metastases developing 6 years after left hemicolectomy for colon cancer: A case report.Fukushima journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration cytology in pancreatic lesions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Optimal Puncture Number and Tissue Evaluation Method in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Patients with Malignant Neoplasm of Pancreas.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Optimal Number of Needle Punctures in EUS-FNA/B with ROSE for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
- Solid pancreatic masses: What's hidden beneath? Insights into rare pancreatic lesions.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Review
- Transrectal contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided transperineal core-needle biopsy versus endoscopic forceps biopsy in the diagnosis of complex rectal lesions.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- 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
- Article
- Deep Learning Applications in Pancreatic Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- Review
- Echoendoscopic ultrasound pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosis and theranostic approach: shouldTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
- Article
- Current status and issues in genomic analysis using EUS-FNA/FNB specimens in hepatobiliary-pancreatic cancers.Journal of gastroenterology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveRobust data in favor of clear superiority of 22G fine-needle biopsy (FNB) over 22G FNA for an echoendoscopic-guided sampling of pancreatic masses are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the diagnostic outcomes and sample adequacy of these two needles. MATERIALS AND
methodsComputerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed and restricted to only randomized controlled trials. Summary estimates were expressed regarding risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval.
resultsA total of 11 trials with 833 patients were analyzed. The two needles resulted comparable in terms of diagnostic accuracy (RR 1.02, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.46), sample adequacy (RR 1.01, 0.96-1.06; P = 0.61), and histological core procurement (RR 1.01, 0.89-1.15; P = 0.86). Pooled sensitivity in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer was 93.1% (87.9%-98.4%) and 90.4% (86.3%-94.5%) with biopsy and aspirate, respectively, whereas specificity for detecting pancreatic cancer was 100% with both needles. Analysis of the number of needle passes showed a nonsignificantly positive trend in favor of FNB (mean difference: -0.32, -0.66-0.02; P = 0.07).
conclusionOur meta-analysis stands for a nonsuperiority of 22G FNB over 22G FNA; hence, no definitive recommendations on the use of a particular device can be made.
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.