ArticlePloS one2025
Evaluation of the 22G Franseen needle and 22G Lancet needle for endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition sampling in solid pancreatic lesions: Propensity score weighting.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Franseen Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Pooled it
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
aimAdvantages of endoscopic ultrasonography-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) using a Lancet and Franseen needles have been evaluated and compared. However, little is known about the performance of each needle in diagnostic methods such as cytology and histology or the amount of blood contamination associated with each needle. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic yield and amount of blood contamination between two needles in patients with solid pancreatic lesions.
methodsWe collected data of consecutive patients who underwent first time EUS-TA of solid pancreatic lesions at Osaka Metropolitan University between Jan 2006 and Jan 2021 from the electronic medical records. We compared the main outcomes (histological diagnostic accuracy) between the Lancet and Franseen needle groups. The amounts of core tissue and blood contamination were evaluated using a scoring system. This retrospective comparative study was conducted at a single center.
resultsA total of 315 patients were divided into the Lancet (n = 200) and Franseen needle group (n = 115). The histological sensitivity and histological diagnostic accuracy of the Franseen needle was higher than that of Lancet needle (82.4% vs. 59.8%, respectively; odds ratio [OR], 2.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.21-4.35; p = 0.011). Multivariate analysis using inverse probability of treat weighting method revealed that the diagnostic performance of the Franseen needle was the significantly higher than the Lancet needle (OR, 2.74; 95% CI, 1.31-5.74; p = 0.007). The core tissue score of 4 was achieved in 53.3% of the Franseen group and 3.3% of the Lancet group (p < 0.001), while high blood contamination was observed in 53.3% and 40%, respectively (p = 0.089).
conclusionThe histological accuracy and the amount of tissue by the Franseen needle are higher than those of the Lancet needle. Franseen needle could achieve high histological diagnostic accuracy even with the same blood contamination rate as that in Lancet needle.
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.