Trial reportDigestive diseases and sciences2021
Effectiveness of Menghini-Type Needles for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Pancreatic Masses.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition for small solid pancreatic lesions: Does the size matter?DEN open · 2022Review
- Utility of a 21-gauge Menghini-type biopsy needle with the rolling method for an endoscopic ultrasound-guided histological diagnosis of autoimmune pancreatitis: a retrospective study.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
13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCutting needles are thought to be effective as biopsy needles. A few types of cutting needles are available for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), and the Menghini-type needle is an end-type cutting needle.
aimsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the results of EUS-FNA using a Menghini-type needle (needle M) versus a conventional needle (needle S).
methodsThe main eligibility criteria were as follows: patients with a pancreatic mass referred for EUS-FNA, ≥ 20 years old, and a performance status < 4. The primary outcome was the sample quality. The secondary outcomes were factors associated with the sample quality, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse events.
resultsA total of 97 patients were enrolled in this study. The sample quality for total puncture with needle M (92.8%) was significantly higher than that with needle S (81.4%) (p = 0.0305). The tumor size (p = 0.033) and type of needle (p = 0.031) were significant factors associated with adequate tissue collection in univariate and multivariate analyses (odds ratio [OR] 2.71; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-6.54; p = 0.027 for tumor size, and OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.23-8.21; p = 0.0153 for type of needle). The diagnostic accuracy of each needle was 88.7% (86/97) with needle M and 73.2% (71/97) with needle S. Adverse events occurred in 2 of the 97 patients (0.02%).
conclusionA Menghini-type needle was able to obtain core tissue for histology more effectively than a conventional aspiration needle. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: UMIN registration number of 000020668.
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.