ArticleInternational journal of clinical and experimental pathology2021
Diagnostic efficacy of different pathologic methods for assessing tissue obtained by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration: a prospective study.
Article in International journal of clinical and experimental pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Efficacy of Histology Combined with Single Cytology for Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Article
- Role of Liquid-Based Cytology in the Endoscopic Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- The usefulness of liquid-based cytology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsThe best method for processing specimens by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) has not been standardized and varies considerably between medical centers. The purpose of this study is to explore whether a combination of histologic and cytologic methods can increase the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-FNA in solid lesions around the digestive tract.
methodsWe recruited 52 patients (65 cases total) with solid lesions around the digestive tract who underwent EUS-FNA as performed by the same endoscopic physician from December 2016 to January 2018. All the EUS-FNA specimens were processed by conventional smear cytology (CS), liquid-based cytology (LBC), cell block (CB), and histopathology. All the pathologic results were tracked to investigate the diagnostic value of the methods.
resultsFifty-three malignant lesions and 12 benign lesions were analyzed. The diagnostic accuracy levels of the CS, LBC, CB, and histopathology were 96.9%, 89.2%, 91.9%, and 48.1%, respectively. CS had a higher diagnostic accuracy than CB (P < 0.05) and LBC (P < 0.05). The cytologic methods had a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy than histopathology (P < 0.05). The combined diagnostic accuracy of all the methods was 100%. The diagnostic sensitivities of the CS, LBC, CB and histopathology were 96.2%, 86.8%, 90.4%, and 37.2%, respectively, and the diagnostic specificity of each of the four methods was 100%.
conclusionsDifferent pathological methods can compensate for one another, substantially improving the overall positive detection rate of EUS-FNA. Combining cytology and histology can contribute additional diagnostic efficacy to EUS-FNA in solid lesions around the digestive tract.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33532021PMC7847493W3126368971What 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.