ArticleScientific reports2024
Comparison of Franseen and novel tricore needles for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in a porcine liver model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Design strategies for flexible core biopsy needles: insights from patent literature.Frontiers in medical technology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy is an effective method for obtaining tissue samples from various organs; however, challenges such as inadequate specimens persist. This study compared a newly designed Tricore needle with a Franseen needle for endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy of porcine liver. Both needles were tested on four male Yorkshire pigs. Specimens were obtained with an 100% (36/36) success rate with no procedure-related adverse effects. The Tricore needle experienced significantly less resistance during puncture than Franseen needle (3.83 vs. 5.97 N, P < 0.001) and better ultrasound visibility (168.97 vs. 125.04, P = 0.004). The Tricore needle also achieved faster specimen acquisition time (48.94 vs. 59.90 s, P = 0.038), larger total specimen area (6.67 vs. 4.68 mm
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.