ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2023
New through-the-needle brush for pancreatic cyst assessment: a randomized controlled trial.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Lab-in-a-Fiber detection and capture of cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.