ArticleAustralasian journal of ultrasound in medicine2024
Efficacy and histologic frequencies of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition using conventional fine-needle aspiration needles for gastric subepithelial hypoechoic mass.
Article in Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reopenable clip over-the-line method in endoscopic full-thickness resection of gastric submucosal tumors: A historical control study.DEN open · 2025Article
- EUS-guided tissue acquisition from gastric subepithelial lesions-The optimal technique still remains undecided.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 2024Article
- A stab in the dark.Australasian journal of ultrasound in medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction/Purpose: For gastric subepithelial lesions (GSELs) showing a hypoechoic mass (HM) on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) imaging, the utility of EUS-guided tissue acquisition using conventional fine-needle aspiration needles (EUS-TA-CFNAN) and the frequency of histological types remain unclear. This study aimed to examine this issue. Methods: This prospective observational study enrolled 291 consecutive patients who underwent EUS-TA-CFNAN for GSELs showing an HM (GSELHM) on EUS imaging. Immunohistochemical analysis was performed for all EUS-TA-CFNAN and surgically resected specimens. The main outcome measures were the technical results of EUS-TA-CFNAN and the frequency of histological types in GSELHM. Results: The endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition using conventional fine-needle aspiration needle diagnosis rate for GSELHM was 80.1% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 75.0-84.5, 233/291). It was significantly lower for antrum (P = 0.004) and lesions smaller than 2 cm (P = 0.003). There were no adverse events. The immunohistochemical diagnoses of EUS-TA-CFNAN included 149 cases of gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) (51.2%), 48 cases of leiomyoma (16.5%), 11 cases of schwannoma (3.8%), 8 cases of the ectopic pancreas (2.7%), 5 cases of subepithelial lesion like cancer (1.7%), 12 cases of other lesions (4.1%), and 58 cases of undiagnosable lesions (19.9%). The frequency of malignant or potentially malignant tumour in GSELHM was 55.0% (95% CI: 49.1-60.8, 160/291). Surgery was performed in 149 patients according to the conclusive EUS-TA-CFNAN results, in which the diagnostic accuracy of EUS-TA-CFNAN was 97.3% (95% CI: 94.7-99.9, 145/149). Conclusion: The use of EUS-TA-CFNAN for GSELHMs is safe and accurate. Gastric subepithelial lesions showing a hypoechoic mass have a reasonably high possibility of containing malignant or potentially malignant tumours, including GISTs.
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.