ArticleClinical endoscopy2024
The role of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy in the diagnosis of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.
Article in Clinical endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Endoscopic Ultrasound for the Management of Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors: Diagnosis, Treatment, and Future Perspectives.Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Review
- Advancements and challenges in gastrointestinal imaging.World journal of clinical cases · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) is a highly accurate method for diagnosing pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (PNETs); however, some PNETs are difficult to diagnose. Recently, the efficacy of needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy (nCLE) in diagnosing solid pancreatic masses has been reported. However, the efficacy of nCLE in the diagnosis of PNETs remains unknown and only a small number of cases have been reported. Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nCLE in the diagnosis of PNETs.
methodsThis single-center retrospective study evaluated 30 consecutive patients with suspected PNETs on contrast-enhanced computed tomography, who consented to nCLE combined with EUS-FNA and were diagnosed using EUS-FNA or surgical resection. The diagnostic criteria for PNETs using nCLE were based on the nesting and trabecular and glandular arrangement of tumor cell clusters surrounded by capillary vessels and fibrosis, as reported in previous studies.
resultsThe diagnosis using nCLE was classified into three categories: misdiagnosis in three cases (10%), non-diagnostic in six cases (20%), and diagnostic in 21 cases (70%). nCLE was able to diagnose PNET in one of the two cases with inconclusive EUS-FNA.
conclusionsAlthough further development of the resolution and optimization of the diagnostic criteria are required, nCLE may constitute a useful diagnostic option in cases of inconclusive EUS-FNA for PNETs.
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.