ArticleTherapeutic advances in gastroenterology2025
The role of rapid on-site evaluation in pancreatic lesion: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized control trials.
Article in Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasonography is crucial for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions. Tissue acquisition using rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) significantly improves diagnostic efficiency. Objectives: This study evaluates the efficacy of tissue acquisition from pancreatic tumors with and without ROSE. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources and methods: A search was conducted in PubMed and other databases covering the period up to February 2024. Eligible randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting data on comparing the efficacy of ROSE and no ROSE were included in this study. We compare the two groups using odd ratios (OR) and mean difference approach. Results: This meta-analysis included seven RCTs, including 1723 patients (909 in the ROSE and 814 in the no-ROSE group) with pancreatic masses. The fundamental characteristics of the studies were almost identical in both groups. There was no significant difference ( Conclusion: The ROSE and non-ROSE approaches showed similar outcomes regarding mean needle passes, sample adequacy, diagnostic accuracy, and adverse event rates. Trial registration: This systematic review and meta-analysis was registered at PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) with PROSPERO Number CRD42024520977.
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.