SynthesisDigestive diseases and sciences2026
Endoscopic Ultrasound-Guided Franseen Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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
introductionAccurate tissue acquisition (TA) of solid pancreatic lesions is essential for guiding treatment with endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) being the preferred method. Among FNB designs, the three-pronged Franseen-tip needle demonstrates strong diagnostic performance, though direct head-to-head comparisons with other FNB designs remain limited. METHODOLOGY: This meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO: CRD420251123856). Eligible studies enrolled patients with solid pancreatic lesions who underwent EUS-guided FNB, directly compared the Franseen-tip with other FNB needles. Six databases were systematically searched through July 2025, and study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (QUADAS-2 tool) were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled estimates were generated using random-effects and bivariate hierarchical models.
resultsSixteen studies (2,010 Franseen vs. 2,811 comparator) were included. Bivariate analysis showed that sensitivity and specificity of the Franseen needle were comparable to newer-generation comparator needles (sensitivity 91.3% vs. 94.0%; specificity 99.99% vs. 99.15%), whereas older-generation needles demonstrated lower sensitivity (80.8%) and inferior discriminatory performance (Negative Likelihood Ratio [LR⁻] 0.19 vs. 0.09). Diagnostic accuracy was higher with the Franseen needle (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14; I
conclusionThe Franseen needle provides superior diagnostic accuracy and sample adequacy compared to older-generation FNB needles with comparable performance to newer-generation designs. It reduces low-cellularity samples and specimen bloodiness, although adverse events are slightly increased, with other primary procedural outcomes remaining comparable.
trial registrationPROSPERO (Registration No. CRD420251123856).
Indexed as
Identifiers
42156629What 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.