Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34975040›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

Efficacy of the Franseen needle for diagnosing gastrointestinal submucosal lesions including small tumors.

Kazumasa Nagai, Atsushi Sofuni, Takayoshi Tsuchiya, Shin Kono, Kentaro Ishii, Reina Tanaka, Ryosuke Tonozuka, Shuntaro Mukai, Kenjiro Yamamoto, Yukitoshi Matsunami and 6 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Duodenal Subepithelial Lesions Showing a Hypoechoic Mass on Endoscopic Ultrasound Imaging.The Turkish journal of gastroenterology : the official journal of Turkish Society of Gastroenterology · 2023
    Observational
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
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

16 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kazumasa NagaiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Atsushi SofuniDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takayoshi TsuchiyaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shin KonoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kentaro IshiiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Reina TanakaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryosuke TonozukaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Shuntaro MukaiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Kenjiro YamamotoDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yukitoshi MatsunamiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Yasutsugu AsaiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takashi KurosawaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroyuki KojimaDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Hiroshi YamaguchiDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Toshitaka NagaoDepartment of Anatomic Pathology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Takao ItoiDepartment of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Tokyo Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Tokyo Medical University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesSeveral studies have demonstrated that EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is useful for diagnosing gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions (GI SELs). However, there is limited evidence regarding the use of Franseen needles during EUS-FNB for patients with GI SELs. In addition, the optimal approach for diagnosing small SELs is unclear. This study aimed to evaluate whether EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle was effective for diagnosing GI SELs, including small lesions.

methodsBetween January 2013 and January 2020, 150 consecutive patients with GI SELs underwent EUS-FNA/FNB to achieve a histological diagnosis. Eighty-six consecutive patients who underwent EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle were compared to 64 patients who underwent EUS-FNA using a conventional needle.

resultsThe diagnostic yield was significantly higher using a Franseen needle than using a conventional needle (85% vs. 75%, P = 0.006). Furthermore, in cases with SELs that were <20 mm, the diagnostic yield was significantly higher using a Franseen needle than using a conventional needle (81% vs. 45%; P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that obtaining a sufficient diagnostic sample was independently predicted by Franseen needle use (adjusted odds ratio: 2.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.2-6.3; P = 0.01) and tumor size of >20 mm (adjusted odds ratio: 3.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.4-8.2; P = 0.006).

conclusionEven when attempting to diagnose small GI SELs, EUS-FNB using a Franseen needle appears to provide a more efficient acquisition of true histological core tissue than using a conventional needle.

Indexed as

EUS-FNAEUS-FNBgastrointestinal subepithelial lesionsgastrointestinal submucosal tumorGIST

Identifiers

PMID34975040
PMCPMC8785670
OpenAlexW4205638880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.