Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37540389›Full record

ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2023

Performance of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Versus Percutaneous Liver Biopsy in Diagnosing Stage 3-4 Fibrosis.

Alyssa Y Choi, Xiaodong Li, Wenchang Guo, Vishal S Chandan, Jason Samarasena, John G Lee, Kenneth J Chang, Ke-Qin Hu

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06231082 (Bloody or Well Done. How Would You Like Your Liver Biopsy, Sir? Post Liver bIopsy abdoMinal PaIn as Predictive Factor for Liver bleeDing), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

NCT06231082 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Bloody or Well Done. How Would You Like Your Liver Biopsy, Sir? Post Liver bIopsy abdoMinal PaIn as Predictive Factor for Liver bleeDing (LIMPID)

TypeinterventionalSponsorCarol Davila University of Medicine and PharmacyRan2024 to 2024Enrolled78ConditionsLiver Disease ParenchymalArmsGroup one - percutaneous (P), Group two - EUS FNB (E)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alyssa Y ChoiDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
Xiaodong LiDepartment of Pathology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
Wenchang GuoDepartment of Pathology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
Vishal S ChandanDepartment of Pathology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
Jason SamarasenaDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
John G LeeDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
Kenneth J ChangDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA.
Ke-Qin HuDivision of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, University of California, Irvine, School of Medicine, Orange, CA, USA. kqhu@uci.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-3377-6553
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPercutaneous liver biopsy (P-bx) is the gold standard for diagnosing advanced fibrosis. Despite the proven technical feasibility of EUS-guided liver bx (EUS-bx) as a novel alternative way of liver biopsy, the clinical applicability remains to be determined.

aimsThe primary aim of this study is to evaluate if EUS-bx, compared to P-bx, can effectively and safely obtain adequate specimen and accurately predict hepatic fibrosis.

methodsThis is a single center, retrospective chart review among patients with liver diseases at a tertiary endoscopy center from February 2011 to March 2020. We assessed the EUS-bx versus P-bx outcomes by success rate, performance, and safety profile. The primary outcome was the association between EUS-bx clinical variables and the presence of histologic liver fibrosis stage ≥ 3. The secondary outcomes were the associations between EUS-bx and variables indicative of fibrosis.

resultsFifty-nine patients underwent EUS-bx; and 59, P-bx. All EUS-bx procedures were successfully completed. All 56/56 (100%) of EUS-bx vs. 50/52 (96.2%) P-bx were considered adequate samples. Tissue lengths were significantly longer in the EUS-bx cohort (p < 0.0001) with a trend towards a greater number of portal tracts. 46/56 (82.1%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 32/52 (61.5%) of P-bx had > 10 portal tracts; 21/56 (37.5%) cases of EUS-bx vs. 14/52 (26.9%) of P-bx had > 15 portal tracts. There were 6 (10.2%) EUS-bx vs. 1 (1.7%) P-bx related complication leading to a phone call (p = 0.061).

conclusionsEUS-bx can safely performed and accurately predict liver fibrosis stage as the standard P-bx without being influenced by procedure-related factors.

Indexed as

EndosonographyLiver CirrhosisBiopsy, NeedleEndoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle AspirationHumansRetrospective StudiesUltrasonography, InterventionalCirrhosisEndohepatologyEndoscopic ultrasoundLiver biopsyLiver fibrosis

Identifiers

PMID37540389
OpenAlexW4385564170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.