ArticleWorld journal of clinical cases2021
Comparison of smear cytology with liquid-based cytology in pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in World journal of clinical cases, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- 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
- Combined Liquid-Based Cytology and Conventional Smear Provides Better Sensitivity and Adequacy Rates After Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Abdominal Masses: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Updated techniques and evidence for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition from solid pancreatic lesions.DEN open · 2025Review
- Tissue processing of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration specimens from solid pancreatic lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- Echoendoscopic ultrasound pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosis and theranostic approach: shouldTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- The usefulness of liquid-based cytology for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of solid pancreatic masses.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Review
- Factors affecting the diagnostic value of liquid-based cytology by EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic neoplasms.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a safe and accurate technique to confirm the diagnosis of pancreatic cancers. Recently, numerous studies comparing the diagnostic efficacy of smear cytology (SC) and liquid-based cytology (LBC) for pancreatic lesions yielded mixed results.
aimTo compare and identify the better cytology method for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was undertaken through July 18, 2020. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity). Secondary outcomes included sample adequacy and post procedure complications. In addition, factors affecting diagnostic efficacy were discussed.
resultsData on a total of 1121 comparisons from 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled rates of sensitivity for SC and LBC were 78% (67%-87%)
conclusionOur data suggested that for EUS-FNA in pancreatic lesions (particularly solid lesions), SC with Rapid On-Site Evaluation represents a superior diagnostic technique. If Rapid On-Site Evaluation is unavailable, LBC may replace smears. The diagnostic accuracy of LBC depends on different LBC techniques.
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.