ReviewJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2024
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for pancreatic cystic lesions: a comprehensive review.
Review in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- EUS-Anchored Multimodal Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Toward a Conceptual Diagnostic Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- The Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Endoscopic Ultrasound for Differentiating Mural Nodules from Mucus Clots in Branch Duct IPMN.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Endoscopic techniques for the diagnosis of pancreatic cystic lesions.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Pancreatic Tissue Sampling: Lesion Assessment, Needles, and Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advancements in diagnostic radiology have amplified the incorporation of these techniques into routine clinical practice. Concurrently, the frequency of incidentally identifying pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs) has surged. PCLs encompass diverse categories contingent upon their origin. Among them, branch duct-intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasms (BD-IPMN) and mucinous cystic neoplasms (MCN) are categorized as mucinous cystic lesions that have malignant potential. Even solid neoplasms occasionally show cystic degeneration. Therefore, precise differential PCL diagnosis is crucial to optimize clinical management strategies and detect malignant transformations. Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) affords comprehensive visualization of the pancreas with high-resolution ultrasound, complemented by fine-needle aspiration (FNA) under real-time EUS guidance, which is a minimally invasive procedure for obtaining pathological samples. This synergy has established EUS and EUS-FNA as vital procedures in the management of PCLs, enabling differentiation of PCLs. Cyst fluid analysis has played a pivotal role in deciding the optimal management strategy. The efficacy of cytological analysis is limited by scant cytologic material. The "string sign" test evaluates fluid viscosity, and its simplicity warrants initial consideration. Amylase and tumor markers, such as CEA, have been studied, but they yield varied sensitivity and specificity. Glucose and genetic mutations (KRAS, GNAS) exhibit promise, while comprehensive genomic profiling underscores genetic insights. Through-the-needle biopsy and needle-based confocal laser endomicroscopy also show high diagnostic yield. EUS-FNA, however, entails risks like infection and needle tract seeding, emphasizing the need for proper utilization. Pancreatic cyst fluid analysis augments diagnostic accuracy and informs clinical decisions, making it a valuable adjunct to imaging.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38051460What 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.