SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2025
Diagnostic Performance of Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Fine Needle Biopsy with Histological Analysis Versus Combined Cytohistological Analysis in Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 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
3 citing papers 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
- Minimally Invasive Sampling Techniques for Pancreatic and Pulmonary Nodules: A Review of the Evolution of Guidance and Sampling Methods.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Review
- Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Diagnosis by Ultrasound-Guided Fine-Needle Aspiration-Cyto-Histological Correlation and Experience at a Multidisciplinary Tertiary Reference Center.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecent advancements in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) needles enable reliable histological evaluation, raising questions about the necessity of routinely adding cytological analysis.
aimTo compare the diagnostic performance of EUS-FNB using histology alone versus combined cytohistological analysis for detecting solid pancreatic malignancies.
methodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases identified studies reporting diagnostic performance, tissue adequacy, processing methods, and reference standards of surgical specimens, clinical, and imaging assessment. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, tissue adequacy, and heterogeneity were analyzed using meta-analytic techniques.
resultsTwenty-nine studies were included. Histological and combined analyses were performed in 1657 and 1271 patients, respectively. For histological analysis, pooled sensitivity was 90.5% (95% CI: 85.8-94.2, I
conclusionsEUS-FNB with histological analysis shows diagnostic performance and tissue adequacy comparable to combined analysis. While histological assessment may serve as a feasible standalone approach, these findings require validation through future randomized controlled trials.
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.