Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36871105›Full record

Observational studyScientific reports2023

Comparison between three types of needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition of pancreatic solid masses: a multicenter observational study.

Min Jae Yang, Jaihwan Kim, Se Woo Park, Jae Hee Cho, Eui Joo Kim, Yun Nah Lee, Dong Wook Lee, Chan Hyuk Park, Sang Soo Lee

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Role of endoscopic ultrasound in diagnosis and management of autoimmune pancreatitis.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. 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

9 authors.

Min Jae Yang *Department of Gastroenterology, Ajou University School of Medicine, Suwon, Korea.
Jaihwan Kim *Division of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Korea.
Se Woo ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hallym University Dongtan Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, 7, Keunjaebong-Gil, Hwaseong-Si, 18450, Gyeonggi-Do, Korea. mdsewoopark@gmail.com.
Jae Hee ChoDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Eui Joo KimDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Gil Medical Center, Gachon University College of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Yun Nah LeeDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, SoonChunHyang University School of Medicine, Bucheon, Republic of Korea.
Dong Wook LeeDepartment of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea.
Chan Hyuk ParkDivision of Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Hanyang University Guri Hospital, Hanyang University College of Medicine, Guri, Korea.
Sang Soo LeeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is debatable which needle has clear superiority of diagnostic performance in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) of solid pancreatic masses. This study aimed to compare the performance of three needles and determine the variables that affect diagnostic accuracy. From March 2014 to May 2020, 746 patients with solid pancreatic masses who underwent EUS-FNB using three types of needles (Franseen needle, Menghini-tip needle, and Reverse-bevel needle) were retrospectively reviewed. Multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model was used to identify factors related to diagnostic accuracy. There were significant differences between the groups regarding the procurement rate of the histologic and optimal quality cores (Franseen vs. Menghini-tip vs. Reverse-bevel: 98.0% [192/196] vs. 85.8% [97/113] vs. 91.9% [331/360], P < 0.001 and 95.4% [187/196] vs. 65.5% [74/113] vs. 88.3% [318/360], P < 0.001, respectively). The sensitivity and accuracy using histologic samples were 95.03% and 95.92% for Franseen, 82.67% and 88.50% for Menghini-tip, and 82.61% and 85.56% for Reverse-bevel needles, respectively. In direct comparison between the needles using histologic samples, the Franseen needle showed significantly superior accuracy than the Menghini-tip (P = 0.018) and Reverse-bevel needles (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis indicated that tumor size ≥ 2 cm (odds ratio [OR] 5.36, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.40-8.47, P < 0.001) and fanning technique (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.00-2.86, P = 0.047) were significantly associated with an accurate diagnosis. EUS-FNB using the Franseen needle enables the acquisition of a larger and more adequate histologic core tissue and achieves an accurate histological diagnosis when using the fanning technique.

Indexed as

EndosonographyNeedlesBiopsy, Fine-NeedleHumansRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, Interventional

Identifiers

PMID36871105
PMCPMC9985625

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.