ArticleiGIE : innovation, investigation and insights2024
Adequacy, safety, and technical determinants of a modified EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling technique in patients with or without cirrhosis: a pilot study.
Article in iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights, 2024. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Technique-related factors of EUS-guided liver biopsy sampling (EUS-LB) as a determinant of specimen yield have not been studied. We used a modified technique to study adequacy, safety, and technical determinants in patients with or without cirrhosis. Methods: EUS-LB was performed with a 19-gauge Franseen-tip needle by wet heparinized suction. One or 2 passes with a variable number of actuations were taken, with an endpoint of the aspiration of blood. Primary outcomes were tissue core adequacy and definitive histologic diagnosis. Secondary outcomes were a correlation between the number and depth of actuations with total specimen length (TSL), longest specimen length (LSL), and adverse events (AEs). Early and late AEs were also accessed. Results: Adequate samples were seen in 48 of 50 patients, and a histologic diagnosis could be achieved in 49 of 50 patients. Mean TSL, LSL, and depth of actuation were 7.98 ± 3.74 cm, 1.89 ± .80 cm, and 4.29 ± .98 cm, respectively. The median number of complete portal tracts was 23 (range, 7-50) and number of actuations was 7 (range, 4-12). The correlation between TSL with number and depth of actuation was r = .71 versus r = .53 and r = .55 versus r = .51 and for LSL was r = .28 versus r = .11 and r = .74 versus r = .55 in noncirrhotic and cirrhotic patients, respectively. No major and 7 (14%) minor AEs were observed. Conclusions: This modified EUS-LB technique resulted in adequate tissue acquisition and is safe in noncirrhotic and cirrhotic patients. Technical factors like the number and depth of actuations determine specimen yield.
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.