ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Impact of Macroscopic On-Site Evaluation (MOSE) on Accuracy of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy (EUS-FNB) of Pancreatic and Extrapancreatic Solid Lesions: A Prospective Study.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study.World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2024Article
- Fine-needle aspiration technique under endoscopic ultrasound guidance: A technical approach for RNA profiling of pancreatic neoplasms.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 2024Article
- EUS-Guided Diagnosis of Gastric Subepithelial Lesions, What Is New?Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cheesy material on macroscopic on-site evaluation after endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy: Don't miss the tuberculosis.World journal of clinical cases · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This is a prospective and comparative study including 76 consecutive patients performing EUS-FNB for pancreatic and extrapancreatic solid lesions, randomized by alternate allocation to macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) (40 patients) or to a conventional technique (40 patients), with three passes each. MOSE samples were differentiated into score 0: no visible material, score 1: only necrotic or haematic material, score 2: white core tissue ≤ 2 mm, or score 3: white core tissue > 2 mm. The conventional technique consisted in pushing all the needle content into a test tube for evaluation by the pathologist. In both groups, a 22-25 Gauge Franseen-tip needle (Acquire, Boston Scientific Co., Natick, MA, USA) was used. The study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and adequacy of MOSE compared to the conventional technique and whether MOSE could optimize the number of passes during EUS-FNB.
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.