Trial reportUnited European gastroenterology journal2020
Multicenter, randomized comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 19-gauge stainless steel and nitinol-based needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic masses.
Trial report in United European gastroenterology journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02909530 (Comparison Between the Olympus EZ Shot 3Plus 19G and EZ Shot 2 19G in Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Masses), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Comparison Between the Olympus EZ Shot 3Plus 19G and EZ Shot 2 19G in Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine Needle Biopsy of Solid Pancreatic Masses
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnosis by Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Sampling through the Lower Gastrointestinal Tract.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Diagnostic Ability of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using 19-Gauge Fine-Needle Biopsy Needle for Abdominal Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- UEGWeek: The modern School of Athens.United European gastroenterology journal · 2021Article
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 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of 19-gauge (G) stainless steel needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of a pancreatic mass often results in technical difficulties due to an inability to advance the relatively rigid needle out of the endoscope. More flexible nitinol-based needles might decrease such technical difficulties and thus increase diagnostic accuracy.
objectiveIn this prospective multicenter randomized single-blinded study we compared the diagnostic value of those two needle types in patients with a solid pancreatic lesion.
methodsPatients with a solid pancreatic mass were diagnosed with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy using one puncture with each needle in a randomized fashion. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of each needle. Secondary endpoints included time for puncture, amount of tumour tissue obtained, and technical failure. Histological specimens were centrally reviewed by a pathologist blinded to the final needle type and final diagnosis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02909530).
resultsOut of 46 prospectively recruited patients, central pathological examination was available for 41. Diagnostic accuracy for the two needles combined was 87.8%. Diagnostic accuracy was 66% and 68% using the stainless steel- and nitinol-based needle respectively. Time spent for puncturing was 137 ± 61 s (mean ± standard deviation) for the stainless steel and 111 ± 53 s for the nitinol-based needle (
conclusionsUsage of a nitinol-based 19-G needle failed to present a significant superior accuracy compared with a stainless steel needle in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions.
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.