ArticleWorld journal of methodology2025
Comparison of standard
Article in World journal of methodology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Lymphoma-associated pancreatitis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study with a prediction model.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration/biopsy (EUS-FNA/B) is the most common modality for tissue acquisition from pancreatic masses. Despite high specificity, sensitivity remains less than 90%. Auxiliary techniques like elastography and contrast-enhanced EUS may guide tissue acquisition from viable tumor tissue and improve the diagnostic outcomes theoretically. However, data regarding the same have shown conflicting results.
aimTo compare the diagnostic outcomes of auxiliary-EUS-FNA/B to standard EUS-FNA/B for pancreatic lesions.
methodsThe electronic databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception to February 2024 for all relevant studies comparing diagnostic outcomes of auxiliary-EUS-FNA/B to standard EUS-FNA/B for pancreatic lesions. A bivariate hierarchical model was used to perform the meta-analysis.
resultsA total of 10 studies were identified. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the receiver-operated curve (AUROC) for standard EUS-FNA/B were 0.82 (95%CI: 0.79-0.85), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.96-1.00), and 0.97 (95%CI: 0.95-0.98), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and AUROC for EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary techniques were 0.86 (95%CI: 0.83-0.89), 1.00 (95%CI: 0.94-1.00), and 0.96 (95%CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively. Comparing the two diagnostic modalities, sensitivity [Risk ratio (RR): 1.04, 95%CI: 0.99-1.09], specificity (RR: 1.00, 95%CI: 0.99-1.01), and diagnostic accuracy (RR: 1.03, 95%CI: 0.98-1.09) were comparable.
conclusionAnalysis of the currently available literature did not show any additional advantage of EUS-FNA/B with auxiliary techniques for pancreatic solid lesions over standard EUS-FNA/B. Further randomized studies are required to demonstrate the benefit of auxiliary techniques before they can be recommended for routine practice.
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.