ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration versus Standard Fine-Needle Aspiration in Pancreatic Masses: A Propensity Score Analysis.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence vs. Human Readers in Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Imaging Endoscopic Ultrasound Interpretation of Solid Pancreatic Masses: A Multicenter Interobserver Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnosis and Surgical Management for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Requiring Vascular Resection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Comparison of standardWorld journal of methodology · 2025Article
- Interventional Endoscopic Ultrasonography: Advances in Application.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Contrast-enhanced guided endoscopic ultrasound procedures.World journal of gastroenterology · 2024Review
- Review
- Methods to increase the diagnostic efficiency of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: An updated review.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Review
- A review of contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography for pancreatic solid tumors.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2023Review
- Contrast-Enhanced Harmonic Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Puncture for the Patients with Pancreatic Masses.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Enhanced ultrasound-guided versus non-enhanced ultrasound-guided percutaneous needle biopsy in tissue cellularity of lung malignancies: a propensity score matched study.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2022Article
- The Utility of Endoscopic-Ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) with Image Enhancement.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhether endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) contrast-enhanced fine-needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) determines superior results in comparison to standard EUS-FNA in tissue acquisition of pancreatic masses remains unclear. The aim of this study was to compare these two techniques on a series of patients with solid pancreatic lesions.
methods362 patients underwent EUS-FNA (2008-2019), after the propensity score matching of two groups were compared; 103 treated with CH-EUS-FNA (group 1) and 103 with standard EUS-FNA (group 2). The primary outcome was the diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, and sample adequacy.
resultsDiagnostic sensitivity was 87.6% in group 1 and 80% in group 2 (
conclusionsCH-EUS-FNA does not appear to be superior to standard EUS-FNA in patients with pancreatic masses.
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.