Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35663151›Full record

ArticleGastroenterology report2022

Diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of splenic lesions: systematic review with pooled analysis.

Andrea Lisotti, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Benedetto Mangiavillano, Anna Cominardi, Andrew Ofosu, Nicole Brighi, Flavio Metelli, Rocco Maurizio Zagari, Antonio Facciorusso, Pietro Fusaroli

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gastroenterology report, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Primary leiomyosarcoma of the pancreas with metastasis to the spleen.VideoGIE : an official video journal of the American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy · 2023
    Article
  8. 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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea LisottiGastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Imola, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7724-7402
Stefano Francesco CrinòDepartment of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Benedetto MangiavillanoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas-Mater Domini Castellanza, Varese, Italy.
Anna CominardiGastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Imola, Italy.
Andrew OfosuGastroenterology and Hepatology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Nicole BrighiDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCSS Istituto Romagnolo per lo Studio dei Tumori (IRST) "Dino Amadori", Medola, Italy.
Flavio MetelliGastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Imola, Italy.
Rocco Maurizio ZagariDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences-DIMEC, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Antonio FacciorussoDepartment of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Pietro FusaroliGastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Imola, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITHumanitas Mater Domini · ITIstituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori · ITStanford University · USUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Focal splenic lesions are usually incidentally discovered on radiological assessments. Although percutaneous tissue acquisition (TA) under trans-abdominal ultrasound guidance is a well-established technique for obtaining cyto-histological diagnosis of focal splenic lesions, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided TA has been described in several studies, reporting different safety and outcomes. The aim was to assess the pooled safety, adequacy, and accuracy of EUS-TA of splenic lesions. Methods: A comprehensive review of available evidence was conducted at the end of November 2021. All studies including more than five patients and reporting about the safety, adequacy, and accuracy of EUS-TA of the spleen were included. Results: Six studies (62 patients) were identified; all studies have been conducted using fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needles. Pooled specimen adequacy and accuracy of EUS-TA for spleen characterization were 92.8% [95% confidence interval (CI), 86.3%-99.3%] and 88.2% (95% CI, 79.3%-97.1%), respectively. The pooled incidence of adverse events (six studies, 62 patients) was 4.7% (95% CI, 0.4%-9.7%). Conclusion: EUS-FNA of the spleen is a safe technique with high diagnostic adequacy and accuracy. The EUS-guided approach could be considered a valid alternative to the percutaneous approach for spleen TA.

Indexed as

biopsycancerleukemialymphomametastasis

Identifiers

PMID35663151
PMCPMC9154069
OpenAlexW4285306993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.