ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2019
Should laparoscopic lymph node biopsy be the preferred diagnostic modality for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy?
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved outcomes of fluorescence-guided laparoscopic lymph node biopsy vs. conventional laparoscopic technique in lymphoma diagnosis.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Fluorescence-guided laparoscopic lymph node biopsy for lymphoma: the FLABILY study.Updates in surgery · 2024Article
- Fluorescence-guided laparoscopic lymph node biopsy in a lymphoma patient: a possible new clinical application of indocyanine green.Journal of surgical case reports · 2022Article
- Single-Port vs. Conventional Multi-Port Laparoscopic Lymph Node Biopsy.JSLS : Journal of the Society of Laparoendoscopic SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy is frequently detected, but often challenging to diagnose. To obtain a tissue diagnosis, percutaneous biopsy (pb) or laparoscopic biopsy (lb) is often undertaken. The safety profiles and diagnostic accuracy of pb and lb within the abdomen are both poorly defined. Methods: In this retrospective analysis, we identified all patients who underwent lb or pb for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy at our institute during 2008-2016. Results: Of 62 patients who underwent nodal biopsy for isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy, 33 underwent lb and 29 underwent pb. For the 33 patients who underwent lb, the procedure was diagnostic in 100% of cases; for the 29 who underwent pb, the procedure was diagnostic in 18 cases (62.1%). Both procedures were safe, with similar complication rates (6.0% for lb; 7.0% for pb). Conclusions: Our results establish that lb and pb are both safe and reliable in the setting of isolated abdominal lymphadenopathy. We also demonstrate that each procedure has situational advantages. A pb should be considered to be the upfront diagnostic modality, particularly when anatomic or disease factors favour its success. In situations in which it is felt that pb cannot safely access the lymphadenopathy or in disease states in which the yield of a core biopsy will be insufficient, lb should be strongly considered. Examples include extra-retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy and cases of suspected lymphoma.
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.