ArticleClinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2026
Comparison of ultrasonography-guided fine-needle aspiration and endoscopic ultrasonography-guided fine needle aspiration for the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy.
Article in Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveBoth Ultrasonography-guided Fine Needle Aspiration (US-FNA) and Endoscopic Ultrasonography-guided Fine Needle Aspiration (EUS-FNA) are techniques commonly used for diagnosing pancreatic malignancies. However, comparative studies evaluating the diagnostic effectiveness of different imaging modalities in detecting pancreatic cancer are lacking.
methodA retrospective study of patients diagnosed with unresectable pancreatic cancer who underwent at least one imaging technique and underwent US-FNA or EUS-FNA between January 2019 and October 2022 was conducted. All patients' medical records were reviewed, and the following clinical data were extracted: sex, age, location and size of the lesion, uncinate, hypoechoic appearance, adequate specimen collection, time of pathological diagnosis, severe complications, repeat biopsy and pathology. To mitigate this bias, we implemented Propensity Score Matching (PSM). After matching, 35-pairs of patients were included.
resultsAmong these patients, there was no significant difference in age, sex, location or size of the lesion, repeat biopsy or complications between US-FNA and EUS-FNA. Adequate specimens were obtained from 35 of 35 US-FNA patients and 29 of 35 EUS-FNA patients (100%vs. 82.9%). The rate of inconclusive pathological diagnosis was lower among patients who underwent US-FNA than those who underwent EUS-FNA (5.71%vs. 8.57%). US-FNA demonstrated a diagnostic accuracy of 82.9%, whereas EUS-FNA also had a diagnostic accuracy of 82.9%.
conclusionUS-FNA is an effective and safe option compared with EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of pancreatic malignancy. It is good choice to establish a definitive diagnosis with key biomarkers.
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.