ArticleGut and liver2024
Factors Influencing the Diagnostic Performance of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration/Biopsy after the First Inconclusive Diagnosis of Pancreatic Solid Lesions.
Article in Gut and liver, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Endoscopic Ultrasonography-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration/Biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) for Solid Pancreatic Lesions: Opportunities and Challenges.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Risk factors and a prediction model for false-negative diagnosis in repeat EUS-FNA/B of pancreatic solid lesions following initially nondiagnostic or inconclusive findings.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/Aims: Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is essential in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), but without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE), a repeat EUS-FNA/B is crucial for clarifying an inconclusive diagnosis. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with improved diagnostic performance of repeat EUS-FNA/B for initially inconclusive SPL diagnoses without ROSE. Methods: Of 5,894 patients subjected to EUS-FNA/B, 237 (4.0%) with an initially inconclusive diagnosis of SPLs were retrospectively enrolled from five tertiary medical centers between January 2016 and June 2021. Diagnostic performance and procedural factors of EUS-FNA/B were analyzed. Results: The diagnostic accuracies of first and repeat EUS-FNA/B were 96.2% and 67.6%, respectively. Of 237 patients with an inconclusive diagnosis from initial EUS-FNA/B, 150 were pathologically diagnosed after repeat EUS-FNA/B. In multivariate analysis of repeat EUS-FNA/B, tumor location (body/tail vs head: odds ratio [OR], 3.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.48 to 9.46), number of needle passes (≥4 vs ≤3: OR, 4.80; 95% CI, 1.44 to 15.99), needle type (FNB vs FNA: OR, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.44 to 7.36), needle size (22 gauge vs 19/20 gauge: OR, 2.35; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.62), and suction method (suction vs others: OR, 5.19; 95% CI, 1.30 to 20.75) were associated with a significantly improved diagnostic performance. Conclusions: Repeat EUS-FNA/B is essential for patients with an inconclusive EUS-FNA/B without ROSE. To improve the diagnostic performance of repeated EUS-FNA/B, it is recommended that 22-gauge FNB needles, ≥4 needle passes, and suction methods are used.
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.