Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38928653›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Diagnostic Yield of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Liver Biopsy in Comparison to Percutaneous Liver Biopsy: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Megha Bhandari, Jayanta Samanta, Marco Spadaccini, Alessandro Fugazza, Stefano Francesco Crinò, Paraskevas Gkolfakis, Konstantinos Triantafyllou, Jahnvi Dhar, Marcello Maida, Nicola Pugliese and 5 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy: Are we ready for routine use?World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. 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

15 authors.

Megha BhandariHepatology Department, Cambridge University Hospital, Cambridge CB4 1GN, UK.
Jayanta SamantaGastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India.ORCID 0000-0002-9277-5086
Marco SpadacciniEndoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3909-9012
Alessandro FugazzaEndoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-0485-4903
Stefano Francesco CrinòDiagnostic and Interventional Endoscopy of Pancreas, Pancreas Institute, University of Verona, 37134 Verona, Italy.
Paraskevas GkolfakisDepartment of Gastroenterology, General Hospital of Nea Ionia "Konstantopoulio-Patision", 142 33 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-9677-4013
Konstantinos TriantafyllouHepatogastroenterology Unit, Second Department of Internal Medicine-Propaedeutic, Medical School, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, "Attikon" University General Hospital, 124 62 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-5183-9426
Jahnvi DharGastroenterology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh 160012, India.
Marcello MaidaFaculty of Medicine, "Kore" University of Enna, 94100 Enna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4992-9289
Nicola PuglieseEndoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-6466-1412
Cesare HassanEndoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
Alessandro RepiciEndoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
Alessio AghemoEndoscopy Unit, Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center IRCCS, Rozzano, 20089 Milan, Italy.
Gaetano ServiddioGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Via L Pinto 1, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-6424-7841
Antonio FacciorussoGastroenterology Unit, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Via L Pinto 1, 71122 Foggia, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2107-2156

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided liver biopsy (EUS-LB) compared to percutaneous liver biopsy (PC-LB) remains uncertain.

methodsOur data consist of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EUS-LB to PC-LB, found through a literature search via PubMed/Medline and Embase. The primary outcome was sample adequacy, whereas secondary outcomes were longest and total lengths of tissue specimens, diagnostic accuracy, and number of complete portal tracts (CPTs).

resultsSample adequacy did not significantly differ between EUS-LB and PC-LB (risk ratio [RR] 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-2.38;

conclusionEUS-LB and PC-LB are comparable in terms of diagnostic performance although PC-LB provides longer non-fragmented specimens.

Indexed as

adequacycirrhosisEUSFNAFNBtissue

Identifiers

PMID38928653
PMCPMC11203010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.