ArticleDEN open2026
Endoscopic Ultrasound-guided Fine-Needle Biopsy With End-Cutting Needles in Autoimmune Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic Imaging of Pancreatic and Biliary Involvement in IgG4-Related Disease: Key Imaging Features, Diagnostic Criteria and Differential Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: There is limited evidence on the diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition (TA) using fine-needle biopsy (FNB) in autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP), particularly considering the newer end-cutting needles. The aim of this meta-analysis was to provide a pooled estimate of the diagnostic performance of EUS-TA using FNB in AIP patients according to the needle type used. Methods: A computerized bibliographic search was performed through April 2024. Pooled effects were calculated using a random-effects model. The primary endpoint was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, rates of adequate material for levels 1 and 2 of histological diagnosis, definitive diagnosis reached with histology in addition to imaging/laboratory tests, and safety. Results: Twelve studies (three prospective series and one randomized trial) with 496 patients were included. Overall diagnostic accuracy rate was 75% (66%-83%), with a superiority of end-cutting needles over reverse bevel needles (80%, 70%-90% versus 49%, 21%-67%; Conclusions: End-cutting needles showed high diagnostic yield in patients with AIP, with a low rate of adverse events, and should be preferred over reverse bevel needles.
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.