ArticleCancers2023
Diagnostic Yield of Repeat Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions.
Article in Cancers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of safety and effectiveness between endoscopic ultrasound-guided and ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy in focal pancreatic disease: a multi-center, retrospective, propensity score analysis.International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Echoendoscopic ultrasound pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosis and theranostic approach: shouldTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Role of Endoscopic Ultrasound in Diagnosis of Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PATIENTS AND
methodswe performed a retrospective case-control study, including cases with repeat EUS FNB for a solid pancreatic lesion, matched on a 1:2 ratio on age, sex, tumor location and presence of chronic pancreatitis with cases diagnosed on the first EUS FNB.
resultsthirty-four cases and 68 controls were included in the analysis. Diagnostic accuracies were 80% and 88% in the repeat and single EUS FNB groups, respectively (
conclusionrepeat EUS FNB made a diagnosis in three fourths of patients with solid pancreatic lesions and a first negative EUS FNB, with 26% of benign lesions. This supports the repetition of EUS FNB sampling in this clinical situation.
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.