ArticleWorld journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy2024
Role of macroscopic on-site evaluation of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy: Results of a multicentric prospective study.
Article in World journal of gastrointestinal endoscopy, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe concept of macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) was introduced in 2015 when the endoscopist observed better diagnostic yield when the macroscopically visible core on MOSE was superior to 4 mm. Recent studies suggest that MOSE by the endoscopist may be an excellent alternative to rapid on-site evaluation, and some classifications have been published. Few studies have assessed the adequacy of histologic cores in MOSE during endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/FNB).
aimTo evaluate the performance of MOSE during EUS-FNA/FNB.
methodsThis multicentric prospective study was conducted in 16 centers in 3 countries (Egypt, Iraq, and Morocco) and included 1108 patients with pancreatic, biliary, or gastrointestinal pathology who were referred for EUS examination. We prospectively analyzed the MOSE in 1008 patients with available histopathological reports according to 2 classifications to determine the adequacy of the histological core samples. Data management and analysis were performed using a Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 27.
resultsA total of 1074 solid lesions were biopsied in 1008 patients with available cytopathological reports. Mean age was 59 years, and 509 patients (50.5%) were male. The mean lesion size was 38 mm. The most frequently utilized needles were FNB-Franseen (74.5%) and 22 G (93.4%), with a median of 2 passes. According to 2 classifications, 618 non-bloody cores (61.3%) and 964 good samples (95.6%) were adequate for histological evaluation. The overall diagnostic yield of cytopathology was 95.5%. The cytological examination confirmed the diagnosis of malignancy in 861 patients (85.4%), while 45 samples (4.5%) were inconclusive. Post-procedural adverse events occurred in 33 patients (3.3%). Statistical analysis showed a difference between needle types (
conclusionMOSE is a simple method that allows endoscopists to increase needle passes to improve sample quality. There is significantly higher FNB sensitivity and cytopathology diagnostic yield with good MOSE cores.
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.