Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31249163›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound

Comparison of Franseen and fork-tip needles for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid mass lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Babu P Mohan, Mohammed Shakhatreh, Rajat Garg, Ravishankar Asokkumar, Mahendran Jayaraj, Suresh Ponnada, Udayakumar Navaneethan, Douglas G Adler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Babu P MohanUniversity of Arizona, Banner University Medical Center, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Mohammed ShakhatrehRapides Regional Medical Center, Alexandria, Louisiana, USA.
Rajat GargCleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Ravishankar AsokkumarDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore.
Mahendran JayarajDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.
Suresh PonnadaDepartment of Hospital Medicine, Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, Roanoke, Virginia, USA.
Udayakumar NavaneethanCenter for Interventional Endoscopy, Florida Hospital, Orlando, Florida, USA.
Douglas G AdlerDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas · USUniversity of Utah · USAdventHealth Orlando · USBanner - University Medical Center Tucson · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Franseen-tip and Fork-tip needles have been widely used in EUS guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) of solid organs. There is conflicting data on the performance of these needles and unanswered questions on the ideal number of needle-passes and the requirement of an onsite cytopathologist (ROSE). We conducted a comprehensive search of multiple electronic databases and conference proceedings including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases (from inception through July 2018) to identify studies that reported on the use of Forktip and Franseen-tip needles in EUS-FNB of solid organs. The primary outcome was to estimate and compare the pooled rates of diagnostic-yield. A subgroup analysis compared the outcomes based on the number of needle-passes and the availability of ROSE. A total of 23 study-arms were available for analysis. The pooled rate of diagnostic yield with Fork-tip needle was 92.8% (95% CI 85.3 - 96.6, I

Indexed as

Fine-needle biopsyfork-tip needleFranseen-tip needlerapid onsite evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31249163
PMCPMC6927147
OpenAlexW2953066952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.