Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37790688›Full record

ArticleClinical and experimental hepatology2023

Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy for diffuse liver diseases and its predictors - a multicentric retrospective analysis.

Sridhar Sundaram, Bhavik Shah, Nitin Jagtap, Sumaswi Angadi, Aadish K Jain, Shivaraj Afzalpurkar, Suprabhat Giri

Registry-linked trialOpen access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and experimental hepatology, 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sridhar SundaramDepartment of Digestive Disease and Clinical Nutrition, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Bhavik ShahDepartment of Gastroenterology, Shree Narayana Hospital, Raipur, India.
Nitin JagtapDepartment of Gastroenterology, Asian Institute of Gastroenterology, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, India.
Sumaswi AngadiDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India.
Aadish K JainDepartment of Digestive Disease and Clinical Nutrition, Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India.
Shivaraj AfzalpurkarDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nanjappa Multispecialty Hospital, Davangere, India.
Suprabhat GiriDepartment of Gastroenterology, Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, India.
Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences · INTata Memorial Hospital · INAsian Institute of Gastroenterology · INNarayana Health · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim of the study: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided liver biopsy (LB) has become an increasingly popular method of tissue acquisition for evaluating liver diseases. Despite its advantages, EUS-LB has not been widely adopted in clinical practice due to concerns regarding efficacy and safety. Present data on EUS-LB from India are scarce. We aimed to study the diagnostic outcome and safety of EUS-guided liver biopsy. Material and methods: This is a retrospective analysis of prospectively maintained data from January 2021 to October 2022 of consecutive patients undergoing EUS-LB at four tertiary care centers in India. The primary outcome was sample adequacy, while secondary outcomes were rate of successful pathological diagnoses and incidence of adverse events (AE). Results: A total of 74 patients (median age: 44.5 years, 50.0% males) were included. The majority of the patients underwent left-lobe biopsy (62/74, 83.7%), and a 19-G Franseen FNB needle was most commonly used (61/74, 82.4%). Wet heparin suction was used in most cases (60/74, 81.1%). There were five mild AEs observed (one case of self-limited bleeding and four cases of post-procedural pain). Adequate and optimal samples were obtained in 71 (95.9%) and 49 (66.2%) cases, with a conclusive diagnosis being made in 97.3% (72/74) of the patients. On multivariate analysis, the presence of ascites was a negative predictor of optimal sample (odds ratio [OR] = 0.128, 95% CI: 0.017-0.96). Conclusions: EUS-LB is a safe and viable alternative to percutaneous liver biopsy, achieving diagnosis in > 95% of cases. EUS-LB can be performed safely even in patients with mild ascites, although ascites reduces the chances of getting an optimal sample.

Indexed as

endoscopic ultrasoundfine needle aspirationfine needle biopsyliver biopsyparenchymal liver disease

Identifiers

PMID37790688
PMCPMC10544065
OpenAlexW4386163846

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.