ArticleOtolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery2026
Comparative Outcomes of Fine Needle Aspiration and Core Needle Biopsy for Parotid Masses.
Article in Otolaryngology--head and neck surgery : official journal of American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy and safety of ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (FNA) versus core needle biopsy (CNB) for parotid masses. STUDY
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingTertiary academic medical center, 2018 to 2023.
methodsWe reviewed 485 patients undergoing ultrasound-guided parotid biopsy (426 FNAs and 59 CNBs). Permanent histopathology served as the reference standard. Primary outcomes included diagnostic performance metrics for neoplasm, malignancy, and tissue-specific diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included nondiagnostic rates, complications, time to surgery, and technical factors (needle gauge, biopsy setting, and number of passes).
resultsCNB demonstrated superior sensitivity (80.0% vs 54.9%, P = .032), accuracy (86.4% vs 68.5%, P = .007), and positive predictive value (87.0% vs 56.4%, P = .01) for detecting malignancy compared to FNA. CNB had superior tissue-specific accuracy (67.8% vs 49.5%, P = .009), particularly for squamous cell carcinoma and mucoepidermoid carcinoma. FNA had a higher nondiagnostic rate (20.0% vs 5.1%, P = .004). Greater CNB accuracy correlated with ≥3 needle passes and use of 17 to 18 gauge needles. Complication rates were low and similar (3.4% CNB vs 2.1% FNA), with no facial nerve injuries or tumor seeding reported. Time to surgery was comparable (CNB 51 days vs FNA 42 days, P = .10) in cases of malignancy.
conclusionCNB showed improved diagnostic accuracy and fewer nondiagnostic results than FNA for parotid masses, particularly for suspected malignancies and complex histologies, without added risk or delay. CNB should be considered in cases suspicious for malignancy or where tissue-specific diagnosis would inform operative planning.
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.