ArticleInternational journal of surgery (London, England)2026
Comparison of safety and effectiveness between endoscopic ultrasound-guided and ultrasound-guided pancreatic biopsy in focal pancreatic disease: a multi-center, retrospective, propensity score analysis.
Article in International journal of surgery (London, England), 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndoscopic ultrasound (EUS) and ultrasound (US) are the two primary imaging modalities used to guide pancreatic needle biopsy. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance and complications associated with EUS- and US-guided pancreatic biopsies.
methodsA total of 2517 consecutive patients who underwent 2583 cases of EUS- or US-guided pancreatic biopsy for focal pancreatic disease between January 2017 and December 2023 at 7 university teaching hospitals were included. The endpoints evaluated were diagnostic inaccuracy, complications, and repeat biopsies for each method. The propensity score matching (PSM) method was used for the analysis.
resultsFor the entire cohort, diagnostic inaccuracies were observed in 7.0% of cases in the EUS-guided biopsy group compared to 3.5% in the US-guided biopsy group, representing a statistically significant difference ( P = 0.001). The rates of major ( P = 1.000) and minor complications ( P = 0.309) were similar between the two groups. The rate of repeat biopsies was significantly higher in the EUS-guided biopsy group than in the US-guided biopsy group (5.0% vs. 2.8%, P = 0.024). However, after balancing lesion characteristics using PSM, no significant differences were observed between the EUS- and US-guided biopsies in diagnostic inaccuracy (7.2% vs. 8.5%, P = 0.600), major complications (0.5% vs. 0%, P = 0.499), minor complications (1.7% vs. 0.2%, P = 0.069), or repeat biopsy rate (5.5% vs. 6.5%, P = 0.656). Subgroup analysis revealed that among patients with exophytic and backward growth pancreatic lesions, both diagnostic inaccuracy (7.1% vs. 33.3%, P = 0.001) and the repeat biopsy rate (10.7% vs. 27.8%, P = 0.029) were significantly lower in the EUS-guided biopsy group compared to the US-guided biopsy group.
conclusionsThis study confirmed that both EUS-guided and US-guided pancreatic biopsies are safe and effective for patients with focal pancreatic disease. After PSM, diagnostic inaccuracy, repeat biopsy and complication rates were similar, but EUS-guided biopsy was preferred for lesions with exophytic and backward growth morphology.
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.