ArticleActa medica Philippina2024
Evaluation of Fine Needle Biopsy (FNB) for Endoscopic Ultrasound (EUS)-guided Tissue Acquisition of Pancreatic Masses to Negate the Need for Rapid On-site Evaluation: A Randomized Control Trial.
Article in Acta medica Philippina, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- EUS-FNA with ROSE for pancreatic solid lesions: a single-center experience.BMC gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Pancreatic Cancer Detection in Intraductal Papillary Mucinous Neoplasm (IPMN)-New Insights.Cancers · 2025Review
- Roadmap to Challenges in Limited Cellularity Specimens from Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Diagnostic Tools for the Most Appropriate Management of Limited Material.Endocrine pathology · 2025Review
- The role of rapid on-site evaluation in pancreatic lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.Therapeutic advances in 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: The benefits of rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) of solid masses have not been convincingly shown in large, randomized trials. New equipment using EUS-guided fine needle biopsy (FNB) allows for more material to be acquired that may obviate the need for ROSE. This study aimed to evaluate if EUS-FNB without ROSE was non-inferior to EUS-FNA with ROSE in solid pancreatic masses (SPMs). Methods: Patients with SPMs requiring tissue sampling were randomly assigned to undergo either EUS-FNA with ROSE or EUS-FNB without ROSE. The touch-imprint cytology technique was used to perform ROSE. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy and secondary endpoints were specimen quality, complication rates, and procedure time. Results: Seventy-eight patients were randomized and analyzed (39 EUS-FNA with ROSE and 39 EUS-FNB without ROSE). Non-significantly different diagnostic accuracies were noted in both groups (97% with ROSE and 100% without ROSE, P < 0.371). The bloodiness of histologic samples and complication rates were not significantly different between groups. A significantly shorter mean sampling procedural time was noted for EUS-FNB over EUS-FNA with ROSE (30.4 ± 10.4 vs 35.8 ± 9.8 minutes, P < .02). Conclusions: EUS-FNB demonstrated equal diagnostic accuracy with shorter procedure times in evaluating SPMs compared to EUS-FNA with ROSE. These new-generation FNB needles may obviate the need for ROSE.
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.