ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2021
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration with 19-Gauge and 22-Gauge Needles for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing needle types and aspiration techniques in EUS-TA to optimize diagnostic efficacy and specimen quality in patients with pancreatic lesions.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- A case of multiple myeloma with pancreatic involvement diagnosed via endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration.Clinical case reports · 2023Article
- Efficacy and diagnostic yield of 19GEndoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to compare the histological and/or cytological diagnostic outcomes of EUS-FNA using 19G and 22G needles for solid pancreatic lesions and to evaluate the feasibility and safety of 19G needle. PATIENTS AND
methodsData from patients with solid pancreatic lesions, who underwent EUS-FNA, were retrospectively retrieved from a single tertiary center from June 2017 to January 2021. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of diagnosis, sample adequacy, number and time of punctures, and adverse events, were compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis.
resultsA total of 186 patients (19G group, n = 90; 22G group, n = 96) were analyzed in the study. The higher sensitivity and accuracy were observed in 19G group than those in the 22G group both in histological evaluation (89.3% vs 76%, p = 0.031; 91.1% vs 79.2%, p = 0.023; respectively) and in the combined histological and cytological evaluations (93.3% vs 81.3%, p = 0.027; 94.4% vs 84.3%, p = 0.027, respectively). However, there were no significant differences in specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The number of needle passes and the puncture time were significantly lower in the 19G group than that in the 22G group (1.66 ± 0.07 vs 2.25 ± 0.08, p < 0.001; 125.4 ± 4.93s vs 169.0 ± 5.6s p < 0.001; respectively). Only 2 cases were failed in the 19G group and no serious complications occurred. Univariate and multivariate logistic analyses suggested that CA199 levels and needle types are related to the accuracy of the EUS-FNA histological diagnosis.
conclusionEUS-FNA using a 19G needle is effective and safe for solid pancreatic lesions. Compared with the 22G needle, EUS-FNA with a 19G needle can obtain a better histological diagnostic accuracy of solid pancreatic lesions, and with fewer needle passes and in a shorter time.
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.