Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36255027›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

Comparison of specimen quality among the standard suction, slow-pull, and wet suction techniques for EUS-FNA: A multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial.

Tian-Yin Chen, Ji-Wang Cao, Chen Jin, Yuan Ji, Liang Zhong, Li-Mei Wang, Ning Cui, Yang Di, Yun Bao, Ning Zhong and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03567863 (Multicentric Randomized Study Comparing the Histological and Molecular Material Quality Obtained by EUS-FNB of Pancreatic Mass With Two "Biopsic" Needles), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03567863 nacompletednot on this map

Multicentric Randomized Study Comparing the Histological and Molecular Material Quality Obtained by EUS-FNB of Pancreatic Mass With Two "Biopsic" Needles: the 20-gauge Procore® (Cook) and the 22-gauge Acquire® (Boston Scientific)

TypeinterventionalSponsorSociété Française d'Endoscopie DigestiveRan2018 to 2019Enrolled60ConditionsPancreas Cancer, Pancreatic AdenocarcinomaArms20-GAUGE PROCORE® first, then 22-GAUGE ACQUIRE®, 22-GAUGE ACQUIRE® first, then 20-GAUGE PROCORE®
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

Tian-Yin ChenEndoscopy Centre and Endoscopy Research Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ji-Wang CaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Chen JinDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Institute, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yuan JiDepartment of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Liang ZhongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Li-Mei WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China.
Ning CuiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei Province, China.
Yang DiDepartment of Pancreatic Surgery, Pancreatic Disease Institute, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yun BaoDepartment of Pathology, Huashan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ning ZhongDepartment of Gastroenterology, Laboratory of Translational Gastroenterology, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan, Shandong Province, China.
Yi-Qun ZhangEndoscopy Centre and Endoscopy Research Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Ping-Hong ZhouEndoscopy Centre and Endoscopy Research Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Standard suction technique (SST), slow-pull technique (SPT), and wet suction technique (WEST) of EUS-FNA are designed to improve the diagnostic yields of solid and solid-cystic lesions. We conducted a multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial to compare SST, SPT, and WEST on specimen quality and diagnostic accuracy using a 22G needle. Methods: Patients with solid or solid-cystic lesions referred for EUS-FNA at four tertiary hospitals from December 2017 to August 2019 were considered eligible. All lesions were sampled using a 22G needle by the three techniques performed consecutively in a randomized order. The primary outcome was quality of the specimen acquired by each technique regarding blood contamination, tissue integrity and cellularity for diagnosis, graded on a predefined scale. The secondary outcomes were the diagnostic yield of EUS-FNA and the incidence of adverse events. ClinicalTrial. gov registration number: NCT03567863. Results: A total of 300 patients (mean age, 60.6 years, 188 men) were enrolled. WEST was superior (mean score 4.02 ± 1.51) over SST (3.67 ± 1.57, P = 0.018), but comparable to SPT (3.83 ± 1.55, P = 0.370) in overall specimen quality evaluation. WEST produced better tissue integrity (1.42 ± 0.74) and higher cellularity (1.32 ± 0.80) than SST and SPT. SPT (1.43 ± 0.69) was superior to SST (1.27 ± 0.72, P = 0.004) and WEST (1.28 ± 0.71, P = 0.006) in avoiding blood contamination. WEST achieved a diagnostic accuracy of 74.7%, higher than SST (64.4%, P = 0.007) and SPT (65.0%, P = 0.012). One bleeding event occurred with a pancreatic lesion. Conclusions: WEST was comparable to SPT and superior to SST in the overall quality of the specimen and achieved highest diagnostic yield.

Indexed as

EUS-FNApancreatic massspecimen qualitywet suction

Identifiers

PMID36255027
PMCPMC9688131

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

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.