SynthesisPeerJ2026
Diagnostic yield of Franseen biopsy needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided tissue acquisition: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided tissue acquisition is pivotal for diagnosing solid gastrointestinal and pancreaticobiliary lesions. The Franseen needle, featuring a three-pronged crown tip, promises improved core procurement and diagnostic accuracy. This study systematically compares the performance of Franseen versus standard needles across key procedural and diagnostic outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL were systematically searched for studies published up to April 2025, with an updated search conducted in July 2026, evaluating Franseen and comparator needles in adult patients. Outcomes included sample adequacy, diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUROC), histological core procurement, number of needle passes per patient, and adverse events. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed, and the data were reported as odds ratios (OR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and Results: Thirty studies ( Conclusion: Franseen needles improve sample adequacy and core procurement and may enhance diagnostic accuracy while maintaining safety; however, diagnostic accuracy estimates should be interpreted cautiously given evidence of small-study effects.
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.