| Title |
Evaluation of 22G fine-needle aspiration (FNA) versus fine-needle biopsy (FNB) for endoscopic ultrasound-guided sampling of pancreatic lesions: a prospective comparison study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6075-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Li Tian, An-Liu Tang, Lei Zhang, Xiao-Wen Liu, Jing-Bo Li, Fen Wang, Shou-Rong Shen, Xiao-Yan Wang |
| Abstract |
To compare the diagnostic yield and safety of 22G endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) and endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle biopsy (EUS-FNB) in the diagnosis of pancreatic solid lesions. Between April 2014 and September 2015, 36 patients with pancreatic solid lesions were included for endoscopic ultrasound test. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: EUS-FNA (n = 18) and EUS-FNB (n = 18). Each nidus was punctured three times (15 ~ 20 insertions for each puncture) with a 22G needle. The core specimens were analyzed, and the diagnostic yields of FNA and FNB were evaluated. The procedure success rate was 100% with no complications. Cytological and histological examinations found that the diagnostic yield of FNB and FNA were both 83.3%. To get a definitive diagnosis, FNB needed fewer punctures than FNA (1.11 vs. 1.83; P < 0.05). 22G EUS-FNB is a safe and effective way to diagnose pancreatic solid lesions. FNB required a lower number of needle passes to achieve a diagnosis compared with FNA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 3 | 75% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 75% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 20% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 45% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 September 2023.
All research outputs
#6,508,303
of 24,657,405 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#1,158
of 6,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,586
of 446,821 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#41
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,657,405 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,609 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,821 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.