ArticleNorthern clinics of Istanbul2022
EUS-FNA and ROSE in solid lesions of the pancreas; have the same diagnostic efficacy compared to pancreatic sites?
Article in Northern clinics of Istanbul, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Advances in the Early Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma and Premalignant Pancreatic Lesions.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVarious techniques, needle types, and additional methods such as on-site pathological evaluation (ROSE) are used to increase the sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound-fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA), which is used in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. In this study, diagnosticity of the lesions according to the regions of the pancreas with EUS-FNA and ROSE performed with the slow pull technique using a 22 G needle will be evaluated.
methodsA total of 82 patients who underwent EUS-FNA between January 2, 2015, and March 14, 2020, were included in the study. General and clinical information of the patients were recorded retrospectively. The patients were diagnosed according to The Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System for Reporting Pancreaticobiliary Cytology Classification. If the diagnosis could not be made with EUS-FNA and ROSE, the diagnosis was made with alternative methods of surgery or percutaneous biopsy. Patients diagnosed as benign with EUS-FNA and ROSE were followed for at least 1 year and were accepted as benign.
resultsThe mean age of the patients was 63.2±10.5 years and 54 (69.6%) of them were male. The mean lesion size was 36.8 mm and the number of needle passes was 2.87. The overall sensitivity was 82.9% and the specificity was 100%. The sensitivity of EUS-FNA and ROSE in solid lesions in the head and body of the pancreas was higher than in lesions in the tail region (p=0.024).
conclusionEUS-FNA and ROSE are an effective method in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. The use of a 22 G needle may be more diagnostic in the head and body of the pancreas than in the tail region.
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.