Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34503112›Full record

ArticleCancers2021

Endoscopic Ultrasound Fine-Needle Biopsy versus Fine-Needle Aspiration for Tissue Sampling of Abdominal Lymph Nodes: A Propensity Score Matched Multicenter Comparative Study.

Antonio Facciorusso, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Nicola Muscatiello, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Jayanta Samanta, Juliana Londoño Castillo, Christian Cotsoglou, Daryl Ramai

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancers, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Clinical significance and efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition for para-aortic lymph node metastasis.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Management of early oesophageal cancer: An overview.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Antonio FacciorussoGastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2107-2156
Stefano Francesco CrinòGastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, Department of Medicine, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4560-8741
Nicola MuscatielloGastroenterology Unit, Department of Surgical and Medical Sciences, University of Foggia, 71122 Foggia, Italy.
Paraskevas GkolfakisHepatopancreatology and Digestive Oncology Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB), 1070 Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-4013
Jayanta SamantaDepartment of Gastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9277-5086
Juliana Londoño CastilloGastroenterology Unit, University Ces, Calle 56, Medellin 050021, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0002-6424-3613
Christian CotsoglouGeneral Surgery Department, ASST-Vimercate, 20871 Vimercate, Italy.
Daryl RamaiDivision of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84132, USA.
University of Foggia · ITAzienda Ospedaliera di Desio e Vimercate · ITClínica CES · COPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · INUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEUniversity of Utah · USUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is a paucity of evidence on the comparison between endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) fine-needle biopsy (FNB) and fine-needle aspiration (FNA) for lymph node (LNs) sampling. The aim of this study was to compare these two approaches in a multicenter series of patients with abdominal tumors. Out of 502 patients undergoing EUS sampling, two groups following propensity score matching were compared: 105 undergoing EUS-FNB and 105 undergoing EUS-FNA. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, sample adequacy, optimal histological core procurement, number of passes, and adverse events. Median age was 64.6 years, and most patients were male in both groups. Final diagnosis was LN metastasis (mainly from colorectal cancer) in 70.4% of patients in the EUS-FNB group and 66.6% in the EUS-FNA group (

Indexed as

colorectal cancerendoscopic ultrasoundfine-needle aspirationfine-needle biopsymetastasespancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID34503112
PMCPMC8428361
OpenAlexW3194056004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.