Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37685379›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Risk Factors and Interpretation of Inconclusive Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Aspiration Cytology in the Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions.

Renáta Bor, Béla Vasas, Anna Fábián, Mónika Szűcs, Zsófia Bősze, Anita Bálint, Mariann Rutka, Klaudia Farkas, Tibor Tóth, Tamás Resál and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Renáta BorDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Béla VasasDepartment of Pathology, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Anna FábiánDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Mónika SzűcsDepartment of Medical Physics and Informatics, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6720 Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8791-9452
Zsófia BőszeDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Anita BálintDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Mariann RutkaDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Klaudia FarkasDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Tibor TóthDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8488-9473
Tamás ResálDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Péter BacsurDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0002-8534-0068
Tamás MolnárDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
Zoltán SzepesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of Szeged, H-6725 Szeged, Hungary.
University of Szeged · HU

Funding

Géza Hetényi Research Grant by Albert Szent-Györgyi Medical School, University of SzegedJanos Bolyai Research Grant, Hungary BO/00723/22 to RBNational Research, Development and Innovation Office K125377 to TM, K134863 to KF, K143549 to TMNew National Excellence Program of the Ministry of Human Capacities, Hungary UNKP-20-5-SZTE-161 to KF, UNKP-22-3-SZTE-233 to PB, UNKP-22-5-SZTE-545 to RB, UNKP-22-4-SZTE-296 to AF, UNKP-22-3-SZTE-278 to TR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe inconclusive cytological findings of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remain a major clinical challenge and often lead to treatment delays.

methodsPatients who had undergone EUS-FNA sampling for solid pancreas lesions between 2014 and 2021 were retrospectively enrolled. The "atypical" and "non-diagnostic" categories of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology System were considered inconclusive and the "negative for malignancy" category of malignancy was suspected clinically. We determined the frequency and predictors of inconclusive cytological finding.

resultsA total of 473 first EUS-FNA samples were included, of which 108 cases (22.83%) were inconclusive. Significant increases in the odds of inconclusive cytological findings were observed for lesions with a benign final diagnosis (OR 11.20; 95% CI 6.56-19.54,

conclusionsThe more than two punctures per EUS-FNA sampling with larger-diameter needle (19 G or 22 G) using the slow-pull and standard suction techniques in combination may decrease the probability of inconclusive cytological findings.

Indexed as

EUS-FNAinconclusive cytologypancreatic cancerrisk of malignancy

Identifiers

PMID37685379
PMCPMC10486755
OpenAlexW4386418371

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.