Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35207324›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022

Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy Using 22G Franseen Needles without Rapid On-Site Evaluation for Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Masses.

Nonthalee Pausawasdi, Kunsuda Cheirsilpa, Wipapat Chalermwai, Ishan Asokan, Tassanee Sriprayoon, Phunchai Charatcharoenwitthaya

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Nonthalee PausawasdiSiriraj GI Endoscopy Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-3737-8555
Kunsuda CheirsilpaSiriraj GI Endoscopy Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Wipapat ChalermwaiDepartment of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0001-9608-4461
Ishan AsokanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Tassanee SriprayoonSiriraj GI Endoscopy Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.
Phunchai CharatcharoenwitthayaSiriraj GI Endoscopy Center, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok 10700, Thailand.ORCID 0000-0002-8334-0267
Siriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of rapid on-site cytologic evaluation (ROSE) on endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is widely debated. This study aims to assess the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB in the absence of ROSE in abdominal masses.

methodsPatients with abdominal masses undergoing EUS-FNB using 22-gauge Franseen needles and the slow-pull technique were prospectively enrolled in this study. Macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was performed without ROSE.

results100 patients were recruited between 2018 and 2020. Seventy-eight patients had neoplasms, and twenty-two patients had benign diseases. Common diagnoses included pancreatic cancer (

conclusions22-gauge Franseen needles with the slow-pull technique and MOSE without ROSE provide excellent diagnostic performances for malignant lesions. Thus, MOSE should be implemented in real-world practice, and ROSE can be obviated when EUS-FNB is employed.

Indexed as

endoscopic ultrasoundfine-needle aspirationfine-needle biopsyhistologypancreatic cancerrapid on-site evaluation

Identifiers

PMID35207324
PMCPMC8875531
OpenAlexW4213240980

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.