ArticleClinical endoscopy2020
Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Fine-Needle Biopsy for Lymph Node Diagnosis: A Large Multicenter Comparative Analysis.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- High Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Malignant Lymph Nodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2021Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence for Lymph Node Detection and Malignancy Prediction in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Multicenter Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Clinical significance and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for para-aortic lymph node metastasis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Article
- Choosing needles wisely: 19-G conventional vs. Franseen needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for malignant lymphoma diagnosis and classification.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Comparison of 19-gauge conventional and Franseen needles for the diagnosis of lymphadenopathy and classification of malignant lymphoma using endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Current perspectives on the diversification of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Deep-Seated Lymphadenopathies and Spleen Lesions: A Monocentric Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Comparison of Fine-Needle Biopsy (FNB) versus Fine-Needle Aspiration (FNA) Combined with Flow Cytometry in the Diagnosis of Deep-Seated Lymphoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Disseminated tuberculosis following invasive procedures for peripancreatic lymph node tuberculosis with portal vein obstruction: a case report.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2022Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle biopsy vs fine-needle aspiration for lymph nodes tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Gastroenterology report · 2022Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound assessment and tissue acquisition of mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2021Review
- Editors' Choice of Noteworthy Clinical Endoscopy Publications in the First Decade.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- High Sensitivity of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration and Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy in Lymphadenopathy Caused by Metastatic Disease: A Prospective Comparative Study.Clinical endoscopy · 2021Article
- Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspirationWorld journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration Versus Fine-Needle Capillary Sampling in Evaluation of Lymph Node Metastasis of Thyroid Cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy May Contribute to the Diagnosis of Malignant Lymph Nodes.Clinical endoscopy · 2020Article
- Improved diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle biopsy with histology specimen processing.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2020Article
- Evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration versus fine-needle biopsy and impact of rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic masses.Endoscopy international open · 2020Article
- Pancreatobiliary Lymphadenopathy: Etiology, Location, and Factors Predicting Good Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biopsy.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is preferred for sampling of lymph nodes (LNs) adjacent to the gastrointestinal wall; however, fine-needle biopsy (FNB) may provide improved diagnostic outcomes. This study aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of FNA versus FNB for LN sampling.
methodsThis was a multicenter retrospective study of prospectively collected data to evaluate outcomes of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for LN sampling. Characteristics analyzed included sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, the number of needle passes, diagnostic adequacy of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), cell-block analysis, and adverse events.
resultsA total of 209 patients underwent EUS-guided LN sampling. The mean lesion size was 16.22±8.03 mm, with similar sensitivity and accuracy between FNA and FNB ([67.21% vs. 75.00%, respectively, p=0.216] and [78.80% vs. 83.17%, respectively, p=0.423]). The specificity of FNB was better than that of FNA (100.00% vs. 93.62%, p=0.01). The number of passes required for diagnosis was not different. Abdominal and peri-hepatic LN location demonstrated FNB to have a higher sensitivity (81.08% vs. 64.71%, p=0.031 and 80.95% vs. 58.33%, p=0.023) and accuracy (88.14% vs. 75.29%, p=0.053 and 88.89% vs. 70.49%, p=0.038), respectively. ROSE was a significant predictor for accuracy (odds ratio, 5.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-23.08; p=0.032). No adverse events were reported in either cohort.
conclusionBoth EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB are safe for the diagnosis of LNs. EUS-FNB is preferred for abdominal LN sampling. EUS-FNA+ ROSE was similar to EUS-FNB alone, showing better diagnosis for EUS-FNB than traditional FNA. While ROSE remained a significant predictor for accuracy, due to its poor availability in most centers, its use may be limited to cases with previous inconclusive diagnoses.
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.