Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41646065›Full record

ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023

New through-the-needle brush for pancreatic cyst assessment: a randomized controlled trial.

Filipe Marques, Igor Schliemann, Wouter van der Wijngaart, Urban Arnelo, Niclas Roxhed, Francisco Baldaque-Silva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Filipe MarquesKTH Royal Institute of Technology, Micro and Nanosystems, Stockholm, Sweden.
Igor SchliemannPathology and Cytology Department, Karolinska University Hospital Stockholm, Sweden.
Wouter van der WijngaartKTH Royal Institute of Technology, Micro and Nanosystems, Stockholm, Sweden.
Urban ArneloDepartment of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences/Surgery, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden.
Niclas RoxhedKTH Royal Institute of Technology, Micro and Nanosystems, Stockholm, Sweden.
Francisco Baldaque-SilvaAdvanced Endoscopy Center Carlos Moreira da Silva, Gastroenterology Department, Pedro Hispano Hospital, Matosinhos, Portugal.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Current EUS technologies are suboptimal in the assessment of pancreatic cystic lesions (PCLs). We developed a new through-the-needle brush, the "loop brush," to improve the cellular yield, and thereby sensitivity, of EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of pancreatic cysts. In this study, we evaluated its safety and efficacy. Methods: We performed an in vivo randomized controlled trial in pigs using artificial cysts. In 1 group, the loop brush was deployed through a 22-gauge needle using EUS-FNA into the cysts. In the control group, cystic puncture was performed with a standard needle. Loop brushes were visually inspected after the procedure. Cytologic assessment, cell counting, and hemoglobin analysis were performed in samples from both groups. Results: One hundred fourteen artificial cysts were punctured in 6 pigs, 57 in each group. Neither adverse events nor significant device malfunction occurred during loop brushing. Samples collected with the brush had nondetectable concentrations of hemoglobin in 72% of cases (41/57), and 26% (16/57) had <.6 g/dL, with no significant differences with the controls ( Conclusions: The procedure using the new loop brush appears to be safe, causing neither significant bleeding nor device malfunction. Samples obtained with the loop brush were suitable for cytologic analysis and showed significantly higher cell yield than controls. Further clinical studies are warranted.

Identifiers

PMID41646065
PMCPMC12850763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.