SynthesisJournal of gastrointestinal cancer2026
Reverse-Bevel (ProCore) EUS-Guided Fine-Needle Biopsy for Solid Pancreatic Mass Lesions: a GRADE-Assessed Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Randomized Trials.
Synthesis in Journal of gastrointestinal cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimsEndoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition is used to diagnose pancreatic mass lesions, but optimal needle selection remains uncertain. Reverse bevel ProCore fine needle biopsy (FNB) needles aim to enhance histologic procurement and reduce sampling burden; randomized evidence versus standard fine needle aspiration (FNA) is limited. We synthesized randomized trials to compare diagnostic performance, efficiency, and safety.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov for randomized trials (parallel or crossover) comparing reverse bevel ProCore FNB with standard FNA in pancreatic masses. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield. Secondary outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, number of passes, sample adequacy, technical failure, and complications. Random effects meta-analysis pooled risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed using I²; leave-one-out analyses explored high heterogeneity. Certainty of evidence was assessed with GRADE.
resultsFive randomized trials (412 patients) were included. Diagnostic yield was equivalent (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.94-1.05; I²=55%). Sensitivity (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.11) and specificity (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87-1.27) were similar. ProCore required fewer passes (MD - 0.69, 95% CI - 1.11 to - 0.27; I²=79%). Sample adequacy was comparable (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90-1.16; I²=66%). Complications were uncommon (RR 1.93, 95% CI 0.57-6.58; I²=0%). Trial design did not modify diagnostic yield.
conclusionsReverse bevel ProCore FNB provides diagnostic yield comparable to standard FNA while reducing needle passes. Low to very low certainty supports individualized needle choice based on resources and tissue requirements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42406286What 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.