Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36537384›Full record

ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound

Optimal sampling technique for EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy of solid pancreatic lesions using a 25-gauge ProCore needle: A multicenter randomized crossover superiority study.

Shi-Yu Li, Lei Shi, Jun Yao, Wei Zhou, Zhi-Jie Wang, Yue-Ping Jiang, Xiao-Wei Wang, Chun-Hua Zhou, Li Gao, Hui Jiang and 4 more

Open access · greenAbstract 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. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Shi-Yu LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Lei ShiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, Sichuan Province, China.
Jun YaoDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shenzhen People's Hospital, Second Clinical Medical Sciences of Jinan University, Shenzhen, Guangdong Province, China.
Wei ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zhi-Jie WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Yue-Ping JiangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Medical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China.
Xiao-Wei WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Medical College of Qingdao University, Qingdao, Shandong Province, China.
Chun-Hua ZhouDepartment of Gastroenterology, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Li GaoDepartment of Pathology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Hui JiangDepartment of Pathology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Ying ChenDepartment of Pathology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zhao-Shen LiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Zhen-Dong JinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Kai-Xuan WangDepartment of Gastroenterology, Changhai Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China.
Changhai Hospital · CNSecond Military Medical University · CNQingdao University · CNAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University · CNJinan University · CNRuijin Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: It remains unclear whether the use of the stylet slow-pull (SP) and wet suction (WS) can improve the yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy compared to standard suction (SS). The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three sampling techniques when using 25G ProCore needles for solid pancreatic lesions. Materials and Methods: This multicenter single-blind randomized crossover superiority trial enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions (n = 300) from four digestive endoscopic centers in China. All three sampling techniques were performed on each patient using a 25G ProCore needle in a randomized sequence. The diagnostic efficacy, the specimen yield, and quality of each technique, the overall technical success rate and diagnostic yield of the 25G ProCore needle, and rate of adverse events were evaluated. Results: A total of 291 patients were analyzed. No significant difference was found in diagnostic efficiency among the three techniques (sensitivity, 82.14% vs. 75.00% vs. 77.86, P = 0.1186; accuracy, 82.82% vs. 75.95% vs. 78.69%, P = 0.1212). The SP had an inferior tissue integrity compared to the SS and WS techniques (71.82% vs. 62.55% vs. 69.76%, P = 0.0096). There was no significant difference in the degree of blood contamination among the three groups (P = 0.2079). After three passes, the overall sensitivity was 93.93%, and the accuracy was 94.16%. Conclusions: SS and WS techniques are better choices than SP technique for 25G ProCore needle, for they could provide higher specimen adequacy without increasing the amount of blood contamination. The 25G ProCore needle can provide a satisfactory diagnostic yield for solid pancreatic lesions.

Indexed as

EUS-guided fine-needle biopsypancreatic cancersampling technique

Identifiers

PMID36537384
PMCPMC9921982
OpenAlexW4312019388

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.