ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences
Comparative study of core needle biopsy and fine needle aspiration in the treatment of metastatic lymph nodes guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare the diagnostic efficacy of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) for metastatic lymph nodes guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), and to provide reference for clinical selection of puncture methods. Methods: A total of 168 patients who were admitted to Baoding No.1 Central Hospital from June 2020 to January 2021 and required puncture of the diseased lymph nodes were included. Seventy six patients were guided by conventional ultrasound, of which 37 received FNA and 39 received CNB. 92 patients were guided by CEUS, of which 41 received FNA and 51 received CNB. The diagnostic accuracy of FNA and CNB guided by conventional ultrasound and CEUS was compared, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FNA and CNB in the diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes guided by CEUS were further compared. Results: The diagnostic accuracy of FNA and CNB guided by CEUS were higher than that guided by conventional ultrasound, with a statistically significant difference (P<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of FNA and CNB in the diagnosis of metastatic lymph nodes were 95.0%, 95.2%, 95.0%, 95.2%, 100%, 100%, 100%, 100%, respectively, with statistically significant differences (P>0.05). Conclusion: CEUS can guide puncture and improve diagnosis accuracy. No statistical difference can be seen in the diagnostic efficacy of CNB and FNA for metastatic lymph nodes, CNB can provide more diagnostic information, while FNA can replace CNB for metastatic lymph nodes adjacent to blood vessels and difficult to operate.
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.