ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Diagnostic Performance of EUS-Guided Sampling in Indeterminate Radiological Diagnosis of Pancreatic Disease and Intra-Abdominal Lymphadenopathy.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling has been widely used for pathologic diagnosis of pancreatic lesions and intra-abdominal lymphadenopathy. However, its effectiveness for diagnostic decision making in indeterminate radiological diagnosis has not been well determined. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom March 2012 to October 2015, 98 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA for solid intra-abdominal lesions were retrospectively analyzed (100 procedures). The purpose of EUS-guided sampling was classified as (1) confirmation of a high-confidence radiological diagnosis (High-confidence group) or (2) decision making in the differential diagnostic dilemma for indeterminate radiological diagnosis (Indeterminate group). The accuracies of EUS-guided sampling according to the purpose were analyzed and then compared.
resultsOf the 100 procedures, 22 procedures (22%) came under the Indeterminate group, whereas 78 came under the High-confidence group. The accuracies did not differ between the Indeterminate and the High-confidence groups (86.4% vs. 88.5%,
conclusionsEUS-guided sampling demonstrated an accuracy of 86.4% in the clinical setting of indeterminate radiological diagnosis, which was not different from that of the confirmation of high-confidence diagnosis.
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.