Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36552957›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Aspiration versus Endoscopic Ultrasound Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Pancreatic Cancer Diagnosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Galab M Hassan, Louise Laporte, Sarto C Paquin, Charles Menard, Anand V Sahai, Benoît Mâsse, Helen Trottier

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Endoscopic ultrasound elastography-guided fine needle aspiration for solid pancreatic lesions: Down but not out!Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Galab M HassanDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Medicine, Réseau Hospitalier Neuchâtelois, 2000 Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Louise LaporteResearch Center, CHU Sainte-Justine, Montreal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada.
Sarto C PaquinDepartment of Gastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, Canada.
Charles MenardDepartment of Gastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC J1H 4C6, Canada.
Anand V SahaiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Centre Hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H2X 3E4, Canada.
Benoît MâsseSchool of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4944-8098
Helen TrottierSchool of Public Health, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC H3T 1C5, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3293-7837
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine · CACentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal · CACentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke · CAHospital Neuchâtel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionOne of the most effective diagnostic tools for pancreatic cancer is endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) or biopsy (EUS-FNB). Several randomized clinical trials have compared different EUS tissue sampling needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided FNA as EUS-FNB needles for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer using a systematic review and meta-analysis.

methodA literature review with a meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA guide. The databases of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar were used, including studies published between 2011-2021 comparing the diagnostic yield (diagnostic accuracy or probability of positivity, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value) of EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Random effect models allowed estimation of the pooled odds ratio with a confidence interval (CI) of 95%.

resultsNine randomized control trials were selected out of 5802 articles identified. Among these, five studies found no statistically significant difference between the EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB, whereas the other four did. The meta-analysis found EUS-FNB accuracy superior to EUS-FNA for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer with a pooled odds ratio of 1.87 (IC 95%: 1.33-2.63).

conclusionAs compared to EUS-FNA, EUS-FNB seems to improve diagnostic accuracy when applied to suspicious pancreatic lesions.

Indexed as

diagnostic accuracyfine-needle aspirationfine-needle biopsypancreatic cancer

Identifiers

PMID36552957
PMCPMC9776533
OpenAlexW4310201075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.