SynthesisBMC gastroenterology2026
The diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy in autoimmune pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC gastroenterology, 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
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimAutoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) is a rare chronic form of pancreatitis mediated by autoimmune mechanisms. Evidence regarding the diagnostic performance of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in AIP remains limited. This study aimed to estimate the pooled diagnostic accuracy of EUS-FNB in patients with AIP.
methodsPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, and Wanfang Database were systematically searched to identify fully published studies evaluating EUS-FNB for tissue sampling in AIP. Pooled estimates were generated using a random-effects model. The assessed outcomes included diagnostic accuracy, sample adequacy, contribution to AIP diagnosis, and adverse events.
resultsSixteen studies, including one randomized controlled trial and four prospective studies, comprising 732 patients, were included. The overall diagnostic accuracy was 79% (73%-83%). Diagnostic accuracy was higher for the Franseen needle (83%, 75%-90%) and Fork-tip needle (90%, 80%-99%) compared with the reverse/forward‑bevel (51%, 31%-71%), with a statistically significant difference (P < 0.001). The 22G needle also demonstrated superior diagnostic accuracy (85%, 79%-91%) compared with 19G/20G needles (70%, 42%-98%) (P < 0.001). The pooled sample adequacy rate was 97% (95%-98%). EUS-FNB contributed to the diagnosis in 69% (50%-88%) of cases where diagnosis could not be established using imaging, serology, or involvement of other organs. The overall adverse event rate was 4% (1%-8%).
conclusionsEUS-FNB demonstrates excellent histological tissue acquisition and moderate diagnostic accuracy in AIP, with a low rate of adverse events. The 22G Franseen or Fork-tip needles may be a reasonable option, though direct comparative evidence is lacking.
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.