ArticleEndoscopy international open2025
Contrast-enhanced vs. standard endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing malignant biliary tumors: Randomized controlled trial.
Article in Endoscopy international open, 2025. 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and study aims: Contrast-enhanced endoscopic ultrasound (CH-EUS) is superior to standard EUS for staging biliary duct tumors (BDTs), but its role in guiding EUS-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) remains unclear. We compared diagnostic accuracy of CH-EUS-fine needle aspiration (CH-EUS-FNA) and standard EUS-FNA in patients with suspected malignant biliary stenosis. Patients and methods: A parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary medical center and included jaundiced patients with suspected malignant biliary stenosis on computed tomography. The patients were assigned randomly to EUS-FNA or CH-EUS-FNA groups. Final diagnosis was determined based on EUS-FNA, surgical specimen results, endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), or 12-month follow-up. Results: Sixty-one patients were included in the study, 31 in the EUS-FNA group and 30 in the CH-EUS-FNA group. Mean age of participants was 74 ± 11.04 years and mean tumor size was 20.39 ± 9.17 mm, with 43 tumors in the distal bile duct. Final diagnoses were cholangiocarcinoma (37 cases), pancreatic ductal carcinoma (12 cases), other malignancies (3 cases), and benign lesion (9 cases). Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 83.3%, 100%, and 87.1% for EUS-FNA, and 82.1%, 100%, and 83.3% for CH-EUS-FNA. Plastic biliary stent placement and tumor location did not influence results. Hyperenhancement in the CH-EUS with rapid washout was observed in 90.9% of cholangiocarcinoma cases. Conclusions: Standard EUS-FNA and CH-EUS-FNA demonstrated comparable diagnostic accuracy in evaluation of extrahepatic bile duct tumors, but with better slightly efficiency and inaccuracy indices than standard EUS-FNA.
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.