Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31147596›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

The diagnostic quality of needle brain biopsy specimens obtained with different sampling methods - Experimental study.

Piotr Trojanowski, Bożena Jarosz, Dariusz Szczepanek

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Piotr TrojanowskiDepartment of Otolaryngology and Laryngological Oncology, Medical University of Lublin, Jaczewskiego 8, 20 954, Lublin, Poland. troja23@gmail.com.
Bożena JaroszDepartment of Neurosurgery and Paediatric Neurosurgery, Medical University of Lublin, Jaczewskiego 8, 20 954, Lublin, Poland.
Dariusz SzczepanekDepartment of Neurosurgery and Paediatric Neurosurgery, Medical University of Lublin, Jaczewskiego 8, 20 954, Lublin, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim is to examine whether brain tissue samples obtained through needle biopsy are better for histopathological evaluation when obtained with defined vacuum pressure, a novel needle rotation method, and using different needle type - Laitinen or Nashold. Moreover the paper aims to answer the question: Does vacuum and mechanical injury resulting from different sampling methods damage the tissue specimen challenging the diagnosis?. Eight hundred biopsy specimens from fresh swine brains were obtained using Nashold and Laitinen brain biopsy needles through inner cannula cutting or needle rotation sampling at vacuum pressure, from 0 to 0.06 MPa. The specimen weight and tissue quality for microscopic assessment were evaluated using the Mair score. Rising aspiration pressure increased the biopsy sample weight. Needle rotation delivered larger biopsy samples than the standard method. Laitinen provided larger samples than the Nashold needle, with the same sampling method or vacuum pressure. A higher histopathological diagnostic quality of tissue was obtained with the Laitinen needle than with Nashold, with higher vacuum pressure than lower pressure and finally with needle rotation than the standard method. No tissue damage caused by higher suction pressure or method of tissue separation was documented. Brain tissue samples obtained through needle biopsy are better for histopathological evaluation when obtained with higher vacuum pressure, a novel needle rotation method and with Laitinen needle. Higher suction pressure and sampling methods did not cause tissue damage.

Indexed as

NeedlesAnimalsBiopsy, NeedleBrainBrain DiseasesHumansModels, AnimalRotationSpecimen HandlingSuctionSus scrofaVacuum

Identifiers

PMID31147596
PMCPMC6542833

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.