English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background: This meta-analysis aimed to provide a pooled analysis of prospective controlled trials comparing the diagnostic accuracy of 22-G and 25-G needles on endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS-FNA) of the solid pancreatic mass. Methods: We established a rigorous study protocol according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. We systematically searched the PubMed and Embase databases to identify articles to include in the meta-analysis. Sensitivity, specificity, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for 22-G and 25-G needles of individual studies from the contingency tables. Results: Eleven prospective controlled trials included a total of 837 patients (412 with 22-G vs 425 with 25-G). Our outcomes revealed that 25-G needles (92% [95% CI, 89%–95%]) have higher sensitivity than 22-G needles (88% [95% CI, 84%–91%]) on solid pancreatic mass EUS-FNA (P = 0.046). However, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in overall diagnostic specificity (P = 0.842). The pooled positive and negative likelihood ratio of the 22-G needle were 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65–28.14) and 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12–0.21), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 12.61 (95% CI, 5.65–28.14), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.16 (95% CI, 0.12–0.21) for the 22-G needle. The pooled positive likelihood ratio was 8.44 (95% CI, 3.87–18.42), and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.13 (95% CI, 0.09–0.18) for the 25-G needle. The area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.97 for the 22-G needle and 0.96 for the 25-G needle. Conclusion: Compared to the study of 22-G EUS-FNA needles, our study showed that 25-G needles have superior sensitivity in the evaluation of solid pancreatic lesions by EUS–FNA.

Comparison of two different size needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration for diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions