ReviewOTO open
Fine-Needle Aspiration Versus Core Needle Biopsy for Malignant Cervical Lymphadenopathy: A Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review.
Review in OTO open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Elastography for distinguishing lymphoma from benign and metastatic lymphadenopathy: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2026Pooled it
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
Objective: Cervical lymphadenopathy is a common presentation in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, often requiring biopsy to exclude malignancy. Fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is the standard initial diagnostic tool; however, evidence from other anatomical sites suggests that core needle biopsy (CNB) may offer superior diagnostic performance. This systematic review aims to compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of FNA versus CNB for adult cervical lymphadenopathy. Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for studies published between 1995 and 2025 evaluating FNA versus CNB for adult cervical lymphadenopathy. Studies lacking extractable cervical lymphadenopathy data were excluded. Review Methods: Two investigators independently screened studies and extracted data on study characteristics and diagnostic performance. A meta-analysis was performed in Stata using a random-effects model, and a quality assessment was conducted using the QUADAS-2 criteria. Results: Of 2523 abstracts identified, 6 studies met inclusion criteria, with 5 providing adequate data for meta-analysis (total n = 649 patients, 331 FNA, 318 CNB). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were higher for CNB (0.94 and 0.98, respectively) compared to FNA (0.72 and 0.96; Conclusion: CNB demonstrates significantly greater diagnostic accuracy than FNA in detecting malignant cervical lymphadenopathy without increased complication risk. While further studies are warranted, these findings support greater consideration of CNB as a first-line diagnostic test to minimize inconclusive results and diagnostic delays.
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.