Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31684700›Full record

ReviewClinical endoscopy2020

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography-Based Tissue Sampling in Suspected Malignant Biliary Strictures: A Meta-Analysis of Same-Session Procedures.

Diogo Turiani Hourneax de Moura, Marvin Ryou, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de Moura, Igor Braga Ribeiro, Wanderlei Marques Bernardo, Christopher C Thompson

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Cholangiocarcinoma 2026: status quo, unmet needs and priorities.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026
    Review
  8. Endo-hepatology: Bridging the gap between lumen and liver.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Endoscopic evaluation of indeterminate biliary strictures: Cholangioscopy, endoscopic ultrasound, or both?Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2024
    Review
  17. Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Endoscopic Management of Pancreatobiliary Malignancies.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2022
    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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Diogo Turiani Hourneax de MouraDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Marvin RyouDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux de MouraEndoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Igor Braga RibeiroEndoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Wanderlei Marques BernardoEndoscopy Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil.
Christopher C ThompsonDivision of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endoscopy, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo · BRBrigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsThe diagnosis of biliary strictures can be challenging. There are no systematic reviews studying same-session endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP)-based tissue sampling and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for the diagnosis of biliary strictures.

methodsA systematic review was conducted on studies analyzing same-session EUS and ERCP for tissue diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. The primary outcome was the accuracy of each method individually compared to the two methods combined. The secondary outcome was the accuracy of each method in pancreatic and biliary etiologies. In the meta-analysis, we used Forest plots, summary receiver operating characteristic curves, and estimates of the area under the curve for intention-to-treat analysis.

resultsOf the 12,132 articles identified, six were included, resulting in a total of 497 patients analyzed. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and accuracy of the association between the two methods were: 86%, 98%, 12.50, 0.17, and 96.5%, respectively. For the individual analysis, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of EUS-FNA were 76%, 100%, and 94.5%, respectively; for ERCP-based tissue sampling, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 58%, 98%, and 78.1%, respectively. For pancreatic lesions, EUS-FNA was superior to ERCP-based tissue sampling. However, for biliary lesions, both methods had similar sensitivities.

conclusionSame-session EUS-FNA and ERCP-based tissue sampling is superior to either method alone in the diagnosis of suspected malignant biliary strictures. Considering these results, combination sampling should be performed when possible.

Indexed as

CancerDiagnosisEndoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographyEndoscopic ultrasoundEndoscopy

Identifiers

PMID31684700
PMCPMC7403009
OpenAlexW2948187339

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.