ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Comparison between Conventional Smear and Liquid-Based Preparation in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology of Pancreatic Lesions.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pancreatic cancer in liquid-based cytology: cytological features and cell block utility from 254 fine-needle aspiration samples.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2025Article
- Role of Liquid-Based Cytology in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Liquid-based cytology features of pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma: comparison with other non-ductal neoplasms of the pancreas.Journal of pathology and translational medicine · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Assessment of Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Pancreas: A Comparison between Liquid-Based Preparation and Conventional Smear.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Molecular alterations in pancreatic tumors.World journal of gastroenterology · 2021Review
- Impact of LBC Fixative Type and Fixation Time on Molecular Analysis of Pancreatic Cancer Cells: A Comparative Study of Cell Morphology, Antigenicity and Nucleic Acids.Journal of cytologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy between conventional smear (CS) and liquid-based preparation (LBP) in endoscopic ultrasonography-fine needle aspiration cytology (EUS-FNAC) of pancreatic lesions. Using 31 eligible studies, the diagnostic accuracy of cytologic examination in CS and LBP was evaluated through a conventional meta-analysis and diagnostic test accuracy review. Overall concordance rates were 82.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 79.8-85.5%) and 94.0% (95% CI, 84.4-97.8%) in CS and LBP, respectively. CS with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed a higher concordance rate than CS without ROSE. In CS, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 89.8% (95% CI, 85.2-93.1%) and 95.0% (95% CI, 90.0-97.6%), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (OR) and area under curve (AUC) of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve were 90.32 (95% CI, 43.85-147.11) and 0.945, respectively. In LBP, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 80.9% (95% CI, 69.7-88.7%) and 99.9% (95% CI, 1.5-100.0%), respectively. The diagnostic OR and AUC of the SROC curve were 57.21 (95% CI, 23.61-138.64) and 0.939, respectively. Higher concordance rates were found in CS with ROSE and LBP in EUS-FNAC of pancreatic lesions. Regardless of the cytologic preparation method, EUS-FNAC is a useful and accurate diagnostic tool for 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.