Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39712178›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024

Comparing needle types and aspiration techniques in EUS-TA to optimize diagnostic efficacy and specimen quality in patients with pancreatic lesions.

Rumin Shang, Xiangming Han, Fangwei He, Lihua Huang, Cui Zeng, Kun Chen, Fei Lv, Xiangwu Ding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Rumin Shang *Department of Gastroenterology, Wuhan Pu'ai Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xiangming Han *Department of Oncology, Nanjing Drum Tower Hospital, Nanjing, China.
Fangwei HeDepartment of Gastroenterology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Lihua HuangDepartment of Pathology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Cui ZengDepartment of Gastroenterology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Kun ChenDepartment of Gastroenterology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Fei LvDepartment of Gastroenterology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.
Xiangwu DingDepartment of Gastroenterology, Wuhan Fourth Hospital, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: In solid pancreatic lesions (SPLs), we compared the diagnostic efficacy of a 19G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) needle and a 22G ProCore fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needle, We also compared the specimen quality between the standard suction (SS) technique and heparinized wet-suction (HWS) technique. Methods: All cases of endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) by 19G FNA or 22G FNB for SPLs in a single-centre hospital were retrospectively reviewed. The diagnostic yield was compared between the 19G and 22G groups. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to identify optimal factors for a correct histological diagnosis. We also examined tissue integrity, the length of the tissue cores, and the rate of blood cell contamination between the SS and HWS groups. Results: One hundred seventy-one and sixty-three patients were included in the comparisons of needle types and suction techniques, respectively. The 19G group had higher histological diagnosis rates compared to the 22G group for the first pass (87.8% vs. 70.4%, Conclusion: Compared to the 22G FNB needle, endoscopists should consider using the 19G FNA needle when appropriate. Furthermore, the use of the HWS technique for the first pass is recommended to improve specimen quality.

Indexed as

biopsy needleblood cell contaminationdiagnosisendoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisitionheparinhistological integritysuction technique

Identifiers

PMID39712178
PMCPMC11658985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.