ArticleEndoscopic ultrasound
Multicenter, randomized controlled trial of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy using a fork-tip needle with macroscopic or rapid on-site evaluation for pancreatic lesions (H
Article in Endoscopic ultrasound. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- EUS-Anchored Multimodal Evaluation of Pancreatic Cystic Lesions: Toward a Conceptual Diagnostic Framework.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Transesophageal EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy for the diagnosis of primary prevertebral spinal carcinosarcoma (with video).Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objectives: According to previous reports, EUS-fine-needle biopsy (FNB) with or without rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) showed the nonsuperiority of EUS-FNB + ROSE over EUS-FNB. However, previous studies included various kinds of FNB needle. This might be a critical limitation due to heterogeneity. Therefore, the aim of the present multicenter, randomized controlled trial was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the fork-tip needle with or without ROSE for pancreatic lesions. Methods: In the ROSE group, if an adequate sample was obtained to diagnose by on-site evaluation, EUS-FNB was stopped. If cytological results were insufficient or indeterminate, EUS-FNB was repeated. In the macroscopic on-site evaluation (MOSE) group, if a 4-mm length of visible core tissue was obtained, EUS-FNB was finished. If visible core tissue was not obtained or was less than 4 mm in length, a second puncture was attempted. Results: One hundred seventy-one patients were randomized, 85 to the ROSE group and 86 to the MOSE group. In the MOSE group, diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were 94.4% and 91.8%, respectively, for visible core tissue and 80.6% and 70.0%, respectively, for red tissue. Finally, overall diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy were 97.1% and 95.3%, respectively, in the ROSE group and 95.8% and 95.3%, respectively, in the MOSE group. Although there were no significant differences regarding adverse events between groups, the mean number of punctures was significantly lower in the MOSE group than in the ROSE group (1.47 Conclusions: EUS-FNB using a fork-tip needle for pancreatic lesions has high diagnostic yield even without ROSE.
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.