ArticleFrontiers in oncology2021
Comparison of Ultrasound-Guided Core Needle Biopsy Under the Assistance of Hydrodissection With Fine Needle Aspiration in the Diagnosis of High-Risk Cervical Lymph Nodes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Korean Thyroid Association Guidelines on the Management of Differentiated Thyroid Cancers, Part II: Follow-up Surveillance after Initial Treatment 2026.Endocrinology and metabolism (Seoul, Korea) · 2026Guideline
- Seeing Angiogenesis: Multiparametric Ultrasound as a Non-Invasive Window into the Vascularization Status of Cervical Lymph Nodes in Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Comparison of ultrasound-guided biopsy techniques for level IV lymph nodes: semiautomatic vs. Menghini modified needles in a retrospective dual-center study.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of core needle biopsy as a first-line method for cervical lymphadenopathy.European radiology · 2025Article
- Accuracy of ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for small cervical lymph nodes: A retrospective review of 505 cases.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A randomized comparison of ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) under the assistance of hydrodissection with fine needle aspiration (FNA) was performed to evaluate the feasibility, safety and effectiveness for the diagnosis of high-risk cervical lymph nodes. Patients from December 2018 to May 2020 were randomly assigned to the CNB group and the FNA group at a ratio of 1:1. This study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of our hospital and registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR1800019370). The feasibility of CNB for high-risk cervical lymph nodes was evaluated by observing and recording the separation success rate (SSR) and technical success rate (TSR) of the CNB group. Safety was evaluated by comparing the incidence of major complications in the two groups. The diagnostic efficacy was evaluated by comparing the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the two groups. A total of 84 patients (84 lymph nodes) were randomized into the CNB (n = 42) and FNA (n = 42) groups. All patients in the CNB group achieved successful hydrodissection and biopsy. The SSR and TSR were both 100% in the CNB group. There were no major complications during or after the process in the two groups. Compared with the FNA group, the CNB group was significantly superior in terms of diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity (100% vs. 81.0%, CLINICAL
trial registrationhttp://www.medresman.org, ChiCTR1800019370.
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.