Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36537383›Full record

ReviewEndoscopic ultrasound

Comparison between EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy with or without rapid on-site evaluation for tissue sampling of solid pancreatic lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Antonio Facciorusso, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Georgios Tziatzios, Daryl Ramai, Ioannis S Papanikolaou, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Andrea Lisotti, Pietro Fusaroli, Benedetto Mangiavillano, Saurabh Chandan and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. EUS FNAC without rapid on-site evaluation is comparable to EUS FNB with macroscopic on-site evaluation in evaluation of intra-abdominal masses.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Observational
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Repeated endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions after previous nondiagnostic or inconclusive sampling.Digestive endoscopy : official journal of the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Antonio FacciorussoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Gastroenterology Unit, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Paraskevas GkolfakisDepartment of Gastroenterology, Hepatopancreatology, and Digestive Oncology, CUB Erasme Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium.
Georgios TziatziosHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Daryl RamaiGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Ioannis S PapanikolaouHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Konstantinos TriantafyllouHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, Athens, Greece.
Andrea LisottiGastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Italy.
Pietro FusaroliGastroenterology Unit, Hospital of Imola, University of Bologna, Italy.
Benedetto MangiavillanoGastrointestinal Endoscopy Unit, Humanitas-Mater Domini, Castellanza, Italy.
Saurabh ChandanGastroenterology Unit, CHI Health Creighton University Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA.
Babu P MohanGastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Stefano Francesco CrinòDepartment of Medicine, Gastroenterology and Digestive Endoscopy Unit, The Pancreas Institute, University Hospital of Verona, Verona, Italy.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRUniversity of Bologna · ITUniversity of Utah · USCHI Health · USHumanitas Mater Domini · ITUniversité Libre de Bruxelles · BEUniversity of Foggia · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The benefit of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) on the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in patients with pancreatic masses is still matter of debate. Aim of our meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic outcomes of these two tissue acquisition strategies. Computerized bibliographic search on the main databases was performed through December 2021 and 8 studies were identified (2147 patients). The primary outcome was sample adequacy. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model by means of DerSimonian and Laird test and summary estimates were expressed in terms of odds ratio (OR) or mean difference and 95% confidence Interval (CI). There was no difference in terms of baseline variables between the two groups. Pooled sample adequacy was 95.5% (95% CI 93.2%-97.8%) and 88.9% (83.4%-94.5%) in the EUS-FNB + ROSE and EUS-FNB groups, respectively (OR = 2.05, 0.94-4.49; P = 0.07). Diagnostic accuracy resulted significantly superior in the EUS-FNB + ROSE group (OR = 2.49, 1.08-5.73; P = 0.03), particularly when the analysis was restricted to reverse bevel needle (OR = 3.24, 1.19-8.82, P = 0.02), whereas no statistical difference was observed when newer end-cutting needles were used (OR = 0.71, 0.29-3.61, P = 0.56). Diagnostic sensitivity was not significantly different between the two groups (OR = 1.94, 0.84-4.49; P = 0.12), whereas pooled specificity was 100% with both approaches. The number of needle passes needed to obtain diagnostic samples was not significantly different (mean difference 0.07,-0.22 to 0.37; P = 0.62). Our meta-analysis stands for a non-superiority of EUS-FNB + ROSE over EUS-FNB with newer end-cutting needles, whereas ROSE could have still a role when reverse bevel needles are used.

Indexed as

AccuracyEUSfine-needle biopsypancreasrapid on-site evaluationsensitivity

Identifiers

PMID36537383
PMCPMC9921973
OpenAlexW4312018261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.