ReviewCureus2024
Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy and Diagnostic Adequacy Between Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided and Percutaneous Liver Biopsies: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Observational Studies.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
A liver biopsy (LB) is a crucial diagnostic tool for evaluating liver diseases and is traditionally performed percutaneously under ultrasound guidance (PC-LB). However, endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) has emerged as an alternative approach, offering potential advantages over conventional techniques. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of EUS-LB using modern core biopsy needles with PC-LB. A comprehensive literature search identified nine studies involving 785 patients that met the inclusion criteria. The meta-analysis evaluated three primary endpoints: diagnostic adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse event rates. The results indicated no significant difference in overall diagnostic adequacy (odds ratio: 0.446, 95% CI: 0.192-1.031) or diagnostic accuracy (odds ratio: 1.646, 95% CI: 0.224-12.09) between EUS-LB and PC-LB. Furthermore, the combined occurrence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the two procedures (odds ratio: 0.653, 95% CI: 0.298-1.431). However, PC-LB demonstrated superiority in obtaining a higher number of complete portal tracts (mean difference: -0.985, 95% CI: -1.753 to -0.218), indicating better specimen quality. While both EUS-LB and PC-LB exhibited similar diagnostic performance and safety profiles, PC-LB provided higher-quality specimens, which may be advantageous in cases where accurate diagnosis and staging are critical, such as the evaluation of liver fibrosis. Clinicians should consider factors like specimen quality, procedural preferences, and local expertise when selecting the appropriate biopsy approach tailored to individual patient needs and clinical circumstances.
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.