ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
The clinical impact of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration on the patients with low-risk pancreatic cystic lesions.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration for Pancreatic Cysts >2.5 cm Without Worrisome Features or High-Risk Stigmata.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- The diagnostic value of convolutional neural networks in thyroid cancer detection using ultrasound images.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Addressing the unmet clinical need for low-volume assays in early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.Frontiers in gastroenterology (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aims: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) is playing a more and more important role in the management of pancreatic cystic lesion (PCLs). The aim of our study was to evaluate the clinical impact of EUS and EUS guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) on patients with low-risk PCLs. Materials and methods: Low-risk PCL patients who underwent EUS-FNA in 2 edoscopic centers were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The clinical impact of EUS-FNA on these patients was analyzed and the predictors for significance EUS-FNA (defined by diagnosis and treatment method change, new high-risk feature identified after imaging scans) were analyzed by logistic regression analyses. Results: From July 2004 to February 2017, 186 patients with low-risk PCLs were included. The study cohort had a mean age of 52.4 ± 15.9 years (range: 19-86 years) with 89 (47.8%) male patients included. The clinical significance of EUS-FNAs was observed in 74 patients (39.8%). The presumed diagnoses of PCLs by imaging were changed in 51 (51/74, 68.9%) patients. Nineteen (19/74, 25.7%) new high-risk features were identified by EUS-FNA, and four patients (4/74, 5.4%) underwent surgery due to suspicious or malignant cytology. Based on multivariate analysis, large cyst size [odds ratio (OR): 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.02-1.19, P = 0.033], young age (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.91-0.99, P = 0.041) and BMI over 25 (OR: 3.15, 95% CI: 1.29-7.86, P = 0.013) were independent predictors of clinical significance for EUS-FNA. The optimal age and cyst size to predict significance EUS-FNA was 46.0 years and 2.3cm. Conclusions: On the basis of a 2-center retrospective study, EUS-FNA was clinically significant in about 40% of low-risk PCLs, especially in young, large cyst size, and overweight patients.
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.