SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2021
High Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in Malignant Lymph Nodes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2021. 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, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic value of conventional endoscopic ultrasound for lymph node metastasis in upper gastrointestinal neoplasia: A meta-analysis.World journal of gastroenterology · 2023Pooled it
- The feasibility and safety of trans-colorectal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: a retrospective study of Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Enhancing lymph node diagnosis: integrating deep learning with endoscopic ultrasonography: a retrospective study in China.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Expanding the horizon of diagnostic endosonograpy: the promise of trans-colorectal endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence for Lymph Node Detection and Malignancy Prediction in Endoscopic Ultrasound: A Multicenter Study.Cancers · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS) in Gastric Cancer: Current Applications and Future Perspectives.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The impact of the novel EUS scope and ultrasonographic system for diagnosis and therapy in patients with pancreatobiliary diseases (videos).Journal of hepato-biliary-pancreatic sciences · 2025Article
- Clinical performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for perivascular soft-tissue cuffing suspected to be extravascular migratory metastases of pancreatic or bile duct cancer (with video).Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025Article
- Diagnostics and Management of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions-New Techniques and Guidelines.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- 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
- Current perspectives on the diversification of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration and biopsy.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- 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
- Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound for swollen lymph nodes.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2023Review
- Effect of wet-heparinized suction on the quality of mediastinal solid tumor specimens obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration: a retrospective study from a single center.BMC gastroenterology · 2023Article
- [New aspects in fine needle biopsies of the lymph nodes].Der Pathologe · 2022Review
- 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
- Article
- Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions, Subepithelial Lesions, and Lymph Nodes Using Endoscopic Ultrasound.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of pelvic lesions via the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract approaches.BMC gastroenterology · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is increasingly being used for diagnosing lymphadenopathy. We aim to systematically review the accuracy of EUS-FNA in differentiating benign and malignant mediastinal and abdominal lymph nodes (LNs).
methodsA comprehensive literature search was performed on multiple electronic databases through February 2020. A random or fixed effect model generated the pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio (LR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of EUS-FNA. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression were used to explore sources of heterogeneity.
resultsTwenty-six studies involving 2753 patients with 2833 LNs were included. In the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant LNs, EUS-FNA had a pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive LR, and negative LR of 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86-90%), 100% (95% CI 99-100%), 68.98 (95% CI 42.10-113.02), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.11-0.17), respectively. The pooled rate of adverse events associated with EUS-FNA was 1.57% (95% CI 1.06-2.24%). The summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.9912. EUS-FNA performed in mediastinal LNs gained a sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 81-88%), while in abdominal LNs, it reached 87% (95% CI 82-91%). The sensitivity of the subgroup with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was 91% (95% CI 89-93%), while non-ROSE was 85% (95% CI 82-87%).
conclusionsEUS-FNA is a sensitive, highly specific, and safe method for distinguishing benign and malignant mediastinal or abdominal LNs. However, the sensitivity of EUS-FNA still varies significantly among different centers.
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.