ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
The impact of macroscopic on-site evaluation using filter paper in EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Oil blotting paper for formalin fixation increases endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition-collected sample volumes on glass slides.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
- Article
- Development of a Novel Evaluation Method for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Pancreatic Diseases Using Artificial Intelligence.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Usefulness of Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation Using a Stereomicroscope during EUS-FNB for Diagnosing Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Canadian journal of gastroenterology & hepatology · 2022Article
- Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) of specimens from solid lesions acquired during EUS-FNB: multicenter study and comparison between needle gauges.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Confirming Whether Fine Needle Biopsy Device Shortens the Learning Curve of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Without Rapid Onsite Evaluation.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Recent advances in convex probe endobronchial ultrasound: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Use of suction during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions with a Franseen-tip needle: a pilot comparative trial.Endoscopy international open · 2021Article
- Macroscopic on-site evaluation during EUS-fine needle biopsy with combined cyto and histological analysis may overcome the need of rapid on-site evaluation.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Validation of a novel swine model for training in EUS-FNA (with videos).Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Pancreatobiliary Lymphadenopathy: Etiology, Location, and Factors Predicting Good Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biopsy.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
- Article
- Macroscopic on-site evaluation after EUS-guided fine needle biopsy may replace rapid on-site evaluation.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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEUS-guided tissue acquisition with rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) has been used to increase the diagnostic yield. However, ROSE is not available in many centers. To date, only a few studies have assessed the adequacy of histologic cores in macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) during EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB). Blood contamination of histologic core specimens lowers the sample quality and the diagnostic yield. Therefore, we evaluated the efficacy of MOSE using filter paper to increase the adequacy of histologic core specimens while minimizing blood contamination. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy-nine consecutive patients with an intraabdominal mass underwent EUS-FNB between March 2017 and October 2018. Histologic specimens obtained using EUS-FNB were expelled onto filter paper, and the histologic procurement rate on MOSE was evaluated.
resultsEUS-FNB using a 20-gauge Procore needle or a 22-gauge Acquire needle was successful in all patients. The mean number of needle passes was 2.8 ss0.8. Visible histologic cores were observed in 94.9% (75/79) of the patients. Blood-contaminated specimens with scanty histologic cores were obtained in 5.1% (4/79) of the patients. On microscopic examination, 92.4% (73/79) of the histologic samples were graded as optimal. The diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 94.5%, 94.3%, and 100%, respectively. Mild postprocedural adverse events occurred in 2 patients (2.5%: n = 1, transient fever; n = 1, acute pancreatitis).
conclusionsMOSE using filter paper provided adequate histologic samples while minimizing blood contamination. MOSE can also increase the diagnostic accuracy when ROSE is not available.
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.