ArticleClinical endoscopy2022
Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration in the Evaluation of Abdominal Lymphadenopathy of Unknown Etiology.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic Value of Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Pelvic Space-Occupying Lesions Via Rectal Endoscopic Ultrasound.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Refining the diagnostic strategy for malignant lymphoma: advantages of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy over aspiration.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- A retrospective study on the comparative use of fine-needle biopsy and aspiration for the diagnosis and classification of malignant lymphoma in Japan.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- Incidental Finding of a Primary Polypoid Low-Grade B-Cell Gastric Lymphoma Managed with Chemotherapy.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Choosing needles wisely: 19-G conventional vs. Franseen needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for malignant lymphoma diagnosis and classification.Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnostic role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Current role of endoscopic ultrasound for gastrointestinal and abdominal tuberculosis.JGH open : an open access journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2022Review
- Mediastinal Nodal Staging Performance of Combined Endobronchial and Esophageal Endosonography in Lung Cancer Cases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Endoscopic ultrasonography.Gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2012Review
- Pancreatobiliary Lymphadenopathy: Etiology, Location, and Factors Predicting Good Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Biopsy.Euroasian journal of hepato-gastroenterologyArticle
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
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a standard procedure for obtaining tissue from lesions near the gastrointestinal lumen. However, there is a scarcity of information on the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNA for abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown causes. To assess the accuracy of EUS-FNA in diagnosing abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown etiology.
methodsThe EUS records of patients with undiagnosed abdominal lymphadenopathy between 2010 and 2015 were reviewed.
resultsA total of 42 patients were included in this study. Adequate specimens were obtained from 40 patients (95%). The final diagnoses were metastatic cancer (n=16), lymphoma (n=9), tuberculosis (n=8), inflammatory changes (n=6), and amyloidosis (n=1). For diagnosing malignancy, EUS-FNA had a sensitivity of 84.6%, specificity of 95.7%, positive predictive value of 91.7%, negative predictive value of 91.7%, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.901. For the diagnosis of lymphoma, EUS-FNA was 100% accurate when combined with cytologic evaluation and immunohistochemical staining. The diagnostic sensitivity decreased to 75%, whereas the specificity remained 100%, for tuberculosis. The overall AUROC was 0.850. No procedure-related complications occurred.
conclusionEUS-FNA showed high diagnostic performance for abdominal lymphadenopathy of unknown causes, especially malignancy, lymphoma, and tuberculosis. Therefore, it is a crucial diagnostic tool for this patient population.
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.