ArticleTrials2023
Dry suction versus wet suction technique of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy for diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions: study protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.
Article in Trials, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05549856 (Official Title), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Official Title: Dry Suction Technique Versus Wet Suction Technique of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine-needle Biopsy for Diagnosis of Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Non-Inferiority Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multimodal imaging platform for rapid non-destructive evaluation of pancreatic puncture specimens.Journal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy with Stylet and Suction Versus No Stylet No Suction for the Diagnosis of Pancreatic and Non-Pancreatic Lesions.International journal of general medicine · 2025Article
- Study Protocol for a Prospective Self-Controlled Trial on Success in Meeting Comprehensive Genomic Profiling Analysis Criteria for Specimens Obtained by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition Using a 19G Needle from Primary and Metastatic Lesions in Pancreatic Cancer with Metastatic Lesions: The PRIMATE Study.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have shown that the wet suction technique in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) generates better histological diagnostic accuracy and specimen quality than the dry suction technique. However, conclusions of wet suction on the diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) are still controversial. Besides, the optimal number of passes for EUS-FNB has not been determined. We aimed to design a large multicenter randomized trial to compare the diagnostic accuracy of dry suction versus wet suction technique in solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs) using 22G Franseen needles and determine the optimal number of passes required for EUS-FNB.
methodsThis is a multi-center open-label, randomized controlled non-inferiority trial with two parallel groups. Two hundred patients with SPLs will undergo EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needles in 4 tertiary hospitals in China and will be randomly assigned to the dry suction group and wet suction group in a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint is diagnostic accuracy. Secondary endpoints include the optimal number of needle passes, sensitivity, specificity, specimen quality, cytological diagnoses, time of the procedure, and incidence of complications. DISCUSSION: This study has been designed to determine (i) whether EUS-FNB using 22G Franseen needle with dry suction is non-inferior to wet suction in terms of diagnostic accuracy and (ii) the optimal number of passes during EUS-FNB of SPLs using 22G Franseen needle.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05549856. Registered on September 22, 2022.
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.