ArticleDEN open2026
Comparison of Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Tissue Acquisition and Percutaneous Liver Biopsy for Diagnosing Focal Liver Lesions: A Retrospective Single-Center Study.
Article in DEN open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma Masquerading as Cholangiocarcinoma in a Young Adult.ACG case reports journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Five Cases of Hepatic Mesenchymal Tumors Diagnosed by Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Tissue Acquisition.DEN open · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aim: Accurate diagnosis of focal liver lesions (FLLs) is crucial for determining the appropriate treatment strategies. Although percutaneous liver biopsy (PLB) is the standard diagnostic procedure, it has limitations, particularly for difficult-to-access lesions. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition (EUS-TA) is an emerging diagnostic alternative. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy, safety, and histological adequacy of EUS-TA with those of conventional PLB for diagnosing FLLs. Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 70 patients who underwent EUS-TA ( Results: The technical success rate was 100% in both groups. EUS-TA showed 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 100% accuracy without false negatives. PLB showed 88.6% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 90% accuracy with four false negatives. Both methods provided sufficient specimens for immunohistochemistry. Adverse events were rare. However, postprocedural pain (7.1%) and 1 case of needle tract seeding (2.4%) occurred in the PLB group, whereas one bleeding event (3.6%) occurred in the EUS-TA group. EUS-TA was mainly used for left and caudate lobe lesions. Conclusions: EUS-TA appears to be a safe and accurate option for FLLs, particularly when percutaneous access is difficult. In clinical practice, EUS-TA and PLB may serve complementary roles, and their combined use could help improve diagnostic accuracy. Prospective studies are needed to clarify specific indications.
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.