ArticleGastroenterology research and practice2021
A Pilot Randomized Crossover Trial of Wet Suction and Conventional Techniques of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Upper Gastrointestinal Subepithelial Lesions.
Article in Gastroenterology research and practice, 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- EUS-guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions-The optimal technique still remains undecided.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Comparison of suction techniques for EUS-guided tissue acquisition: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Endoscopy international open · 2023Article
- Usefulness of a Fork-Tip Needle in Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Gastric Subepithelial Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
18 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
methodsTwenty-six patients with UGI-SELs indicated for EUS-FNA were randomly assigned to the dry-first arm using the dry technique for the first two passes or the wet-first arm using the wet technique for the first two passes using a cross-over design with a ratio of 1 : 1. The primary endpoint was the cellularity score of the EUS-FNA specimens rated on a 4-point scale (0-3). The secondary endpoints were the factors influencing cellularity in each suction technique.
resultsThe mean cellularity score was 1.65 ± 1.20 for the wet technique and 2.00 ± 0.98 for the dry technique (
conclusionThe wet EUS-FNA technique failed to show a potential for improved cellularity of specimens compared to the dry technique for UGI-SELs.
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.