ArticleClinical endoscopy2022
Comparison of diagnostic performances of slow-pull suction and standard suction in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy for gastrointestinal subepithelial tumors.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Practices in Histological Diagnosis and Management of Asymptomatic Gastric Subepithelial Lesions: A Multicenter Survey in Korea.The Korean journal of helicobacter and upper gastrointestinal research · 2025Article
- Advancements in endoscopic resection of subepithelial tumors: toward safer, recurrence-free techniques.Clinical endoscopy · 2025Article
- EUS-guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions-The optimal technique still remains undecided.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024Article
- Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2024Review
- What method can we choose if rapid on-site evaluation is not available for the endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions?Clinical endoscopy · 2024Article
- Prevalence, natural progression, and clinical practices of upper gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions in Korea: a multicenter study.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Article
- An Esophageal Leiomyoma with Cystic Degeneration Mimicking a Malignant Neoplasm.Ewha medical journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) is integral to the diagnosis of gastrointestinal (GI) subepithelial tumors (SETs). The impact of different EUS-FNB tissue sampling techniques on specimen adequacy and diagnostic accuracy in SETs has not been fully evaluated. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic outcomes of slow-pull (SP) and standard suction (SS) in patients with GI SETs.
methodsIn this retrospective comparative study, 54 patients were enrolled. Medical records were reviewed for location and size of the target lesion, FNB needle type/size, technical order, specimen adequacy, diagnostic yield, and adverse events. The acquisition rate of adequate specimens and diagnostic accuracy were compared according to EUS-FNB techniques.
resultsThe mean lesion size was 42.6±36.4 mm, and most patients were diagnosed with GI stromal tumor (75.9%). The overall diagnostic accuracies of the SP and SS techniques were 83.3% and 81.5%, respectively (p=0.800). The rates of obtaining adequate core tissue were 79.6% and 75.9%, respectively (p=0.799). No significant clinical factors affected the rate of obtaining adequate core tissue, including lesion location and size, FNB needle size, and final diagnosis.
conclusionSP and SS had comparable diagnostic accuracies and adequate core tissue acquisition for GI SETs via 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.