ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
The factors that influence the diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy of EUS-guided tissue acquisition for the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions.
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. 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.
- Impact of Sedation Regimen on Diagnostic Adequacy in Endoscopic ultrasonography-Guided Tissue Acquisition of Solid Pancreatic Lesions.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Reframing pancreatic cancer diagnosis: metabolic signatures and the challenge of rule-out testing.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: EUS-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is the preferred method to acquire pancreatic cancer (PC) tissues. The factors associated with false-negative outcomes and inadequate samples should be explored to gain an understanding of EUS-TA. Methods: The patients who underwent EUS-TA for suspected solid PC but whose results were false-negative were analyzed. The PC patients who underwent EUS-TA with true-positive results on the first day of every month during the study period were selected as the control group. The factors influencing diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy were explored. Results: From November 2017 to January 2022, 184 patients were included in the false-negative group, and 175 patients were included in the control group. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the recent acute pancreatitis [odds ratio (OR): 0.478, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.250-0.914, Conclusion: Numerous factors were identified to be associated with the diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy of EUS-TA.
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.