ArticleJournal of ultrasound2021
Transabdominal ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy: a neglected but safe, effective and inexpensive procedure that needs to be re-juvinalized.
Article in Journal of ultrasound, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Percutaneous core needle biopsy guided by ultrasound: a narrative review.Journal of ultrasound · 2025Review
- Combined DSA- and US-guided management of acute bleeding: effectiveness of percutaneous glue embolization in six cases.Journal of ultrasound · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFor solid pancreatic masses, ultrasound endoscopic fine-needle biopsy is suggested as the front-line investigation for tissue achievement, notwithstanding the optimal performance of transabdominal ultrasound (TUS)-guided biopsy. PURPOSE: To reassess the efficacy and effectiveness of TUS-guided sampling and to determine the factors predictive of accurate histology.
methodsIn total, 142 patients with an indication for a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass were analyzed. A single pass of an 18-gauge Biomol needle was carried out by the Menghini technique. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the procedure in terms of correctly diagnosing an inflammatory or neoplastic lesion were determined. The patients' characteristics, the size and location of the mass, and the sonographers' experience in performing TUS were recorded.
resultsThe sampling was unsuccessful in 24 cases, owing to the deep localization of lesions (57%), bloating (33%), or low patient compliance (10%). The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the 118 successful biopsies were 81%, 79%, and 100%, respectively. A biopsy core was obtained in 90 of the 118 patients (76%) in whom the procedure was attempted. In the multivariate analysis, lesion size (≤ 20 mm vs. > 20 mm) (OR = 5.3 [1.7-17.0]) and operator experience (OR = 4.4 [1.6-12.1]) predicted the acquisition of adequate samples. With an expert sonographer, the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were 87%, 85%, and 100%, respectively. Two adverse events were registered: mild abdominal pain and a hypotensive crisis.
conclusionsThe present investigation highlights the optimal performance of a TUS-guided biopsy of a pancreatic mass. Because of its simplicity and safety, the procedure needs to be included among the recommended investigative options.
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.