ArticleBMC cancer2024
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with percutaneous ultrasound-guide core needle biopsies in the diagnosis of pancreatic lesions: a propensity score-matched study.
Article in BMC cancer, 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.
- Correlation between positive biopsy rates and contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings in patients with pancreatic cancer: a retrospective analysis of percutaneous ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
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
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performance of pancreatic lesions using percutaneous ultrasound (US)-guided core needle biopsy (CNB) with and without contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).
methodThe patients were divided into two groups, US and CEUS group, based on whether CEUS was performed prior to biopsy. Before and after propensity score matching (PSM), the CNB-relevant characteristics of the two groups, including the first puncture success rate, the number of sampling, complication rate, type of complications, and degree of abdominal pain, were compared. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of percutaneous US-guided CNB were compared between the groups.
resultsThis study included 277 patients (173 men and 104 women) with pancreatic lesions who underwent percutaneous CNB before PSM; 190 patients in the CEUS group, and 87 in the US group prior to CNB. After controlling for potential biases using PSM, no significant differences were observed in the complication rate, type of complications, or degree of abdominal pain between the CEUS and US groups (P > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in the first puncture success rate and the number of sampling (P < 0.05). Importantly, before and after PSM, the CEUS group achieved a higher first-puncture success rate while obtaining a lower number of sampling (P < 0.05). Compared to the US group, the CEUS group demonstrated improved accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 13.1%, 14.9%, 13.4%, 2.5%, and 38.7%, respectively. Furthermore, the significant difference was observed in the AUC for diagnostic performance between the two groups when compared using DeLong's test (P = 0.043).
conclusionsPerforming CEUS before percutaneous CNB for pancreatic lesions can help achieve better biopsy results, reduce the number of punctures samples, increase the success rate of biopsies, and avoid the need for repeat biopsies.
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.