ArticleDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Comparison of Franseen Versus Forward Bevel Needle for EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy of Subepithelial Lesions: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.
Article in Digestive diseases and sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is lack of direct comparison between different endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine-needle biopsy (FNB) needles for tissue sampling of subepithelial lesions (SELs).
aimsWe aimed to compare Franseen vs forward bevel needle in patients with SELs.
methodsOut of 483 patients undergoing endoscopic sampling of SELs, after propensity score matching two groups were compared: 145 undergoing EUS-FNB with 22G Franseen and 145 with 20G forward bevel needle. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes were sample adequacy, quality of the sample, sensitivity, specificity, and adverse event rate.
resultsSample adequacy and diagnostic accuracy rates were significantly higher with the Franseen needle (98.6 vs 89.6% and 96.5 vs 88.9%; p = 0.01). The scores concerning the integrity of the sample were significantly higher with the Franseen needle (p = 0.02). Diagnostic sensitivity was higher with the Franseen needle (97.9 vs 88.5%, p = 0.02), whereas specificity was 100% with both needles. These findings were confirmed in subgroup analyses according to lesion location and final diagnosis. No adverse events were observed in both groups.
conclusionThe 22G Franseen needle determines significantly higher adequacy and accuracy rates and the quality of the sample is higher as compared to the 20G forward bevel needle.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41843039What 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.