Trial reportSurgical endoscopy2020
A prospective, randomized, multicenter clinical trial comparing 25-gauge and 20-gauge biopsy needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of solid pancreatic lesions.
Trial report in Surgical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A case of high grade pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and the importance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy technique.SAGE open medical case reports · 2025Article
- The reproducibility of interventional radiology randomized controlled trials and external validation of a classification system.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2023Article
- Current Practice Patterns of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Sampling for Pancreatic Solid Mass in Korea: Outcomes of a National Survey.Gut and liver · 2023Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Impact of Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation (MOSE) on Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB) of Pancreatic and Extrapancreatic Solid Lesions: A Prospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparative diagnostic accuracy of EUS needles in solid pancreatic masses: a network meta-analysis.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Tissue acquisition and pancreatic masses: Which needle and which acquisition technique should be used?Endoscopy international open · 2020Review
- Current Status of Needles in the Optimization of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Procedures.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Optimal number of needle passes during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with 22G ProCore needles and different suction techniques: A randomized controlled trial.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundVarious core biopsy needles have previously been developed for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). However, the properties of needle gauge in the diagnostic outcomes of solid pancreatic lesions remain unknown. This trial compared the procurement rates of histologic cores from solid pancreatic lesions with EUS-FNB using 20- and 25-gauge (G) FNB needles.
methodsIn a prospective randomized multicenter clinical trial, patients with solid pancreatic lesions underwent EUS-FNB with either a 20-gauge or a 25-gauge FNB needle. The rates of histologic core procurement, overall diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events were compared between the two groups (20-gauge or 25-gauge FNB needle).
resultsIn total, 88 patients (48 men, 40 women, mean age 65.7 years) were enrolled. No significant differences were found in the demographic characteristics between the two groups (20-gauge or 25-gauge FNB needle). The procurement rate of histologic cores in the 20-guage FNB needle group (41/45, 91.1%) was significantly higher than that in the 25-guage FNB needle group (32/43, 74.4%, P = 0.037). However, no significant differences were found in the overall diagnostic accuracy between 20-guage FNB needle (40/45, 88.9%) and 25-guage FNB needle (34/43, 79.1%, P = 0.208). No procedure-related adverse events were observed in either group.
conclusionsAlthough both FNB needles provided high overall diagnostic accuracy, the reliability of the 20-guage FNB needle is better than the 25-guage FNB needle when retrieving samples for histological analysis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31209607What 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.