Cargando…
A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451621 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2018/e261 |
_version_ | 1783293643598069760 |
---|---|
author | Guedes, Hugo Gonçalo de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Duarte, Ralph Braga Cordero, Martin Andres Coronel dos Santos, Marcos Eduardo Lera Cheng, Spencer Matuguma, Sergio Eiji Chaves, Dalton Marques Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux |
author_facet | Guedes, Hugo Gonçalo de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Duarte, Ralph Braga Cordero, Martin Andres Coronel dos Santos, Marcos Eduardo Lera Cheng, Spencer Matuguma, Sergio Eiji Chaves, Dalton Marques Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux |
author_sort | Guedes, Hugo Gonçalo |
collection | PubMed |
description | Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5773825 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-57738252018-01-22 A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis Guedes, Hugo Gonçalo de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Duarte, Ralph Braga Cordero, Martin Andres Coronel dos Santos, Marcos Eduardo Lera Cheng, Spencer Matuguma, Sergio Eiji Chaves, Dalton Marques Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux Clinics (Sao Paulo) Review Article Our aim in this study was to compare the efficiency of 25G versus 22G needles in diagnosing solid pancreatic lesions by EUS-FNA. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were identified in five databases using an extensive search strategy. Only randomized trials comparing 22G and 25G needles were included. The results were analyzed by fixed and random effects. A total of 504 studies were found in the search, among which 4 randomized studies were selected for inclusion in the analysis. A total of 462 patients were evaluated (233: 25G needle/229: 22G needle). The diagnostic sensitivity was 93% for the 25G needle and 91% for the 22G needle. The specificity of the 25G needle was 87%, and that of the 22G needle was 83%. The positive likelihood ratio was 4.57 for the 25G needle and 4.26 for the 22G needle. The area under the sROC curve for the 25G needle was 0.9705, and it was 0.9795 for the 22G needle, with no statistically significant difference between them (p=0.497). Based on randomized studies, this meta-analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference between the 22G and 25G needles used during EUS-FNA in the diagnosis of solid pancreatic lesions. Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo 2018-01-11 2018 /pmc/articles/PMC5773825/ /pubmed/29451621 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2018/e261 Text en Copyright © 2018 CLINICS http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Guedes, Hugo Gonçalo de Moura, Diogo Turiani Hourneaux Duarte, Ralph Braga Cordero, Martin Andres Coronel dos Santos, Marcos Eduardo Lera Cheng, Spencer Matuguma, Sergio Eiji Chaves, Dalton Marques Bernardo, Wanderley Marques de Moura, Eduardo Guimarães Hourneaux A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | A comparison of the efficiency of 22G versus 25G needles in EUS-FNA for solid pancreatic mass assessment: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | comparison of the efficiency of 22g versus 25g needles in eus-fna for solid pancreatic mass assessment: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451621 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2018/e261 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT guedeshugogoncalo acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT demouradiogoturianihourneaux acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT duarteralphbraga acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT corderomartinandrescoronel acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT dossantosmarcoseduardolera acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chengspencer acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT matugumasergioeiji acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chavesdaltonmarques acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bernardowanderleymarques acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT demouraeduardoguimaraeshourneaux acomparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT guedeshugogoncalo comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT demouradiogoturianihourneaux comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT duarteralphbraga comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT corderomartinandrescoronel comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT dossantosmarcoseduardolera comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chengspencer comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT matugumasergioeiji comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT chavesdaltonmarques comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT bernardowanderleymarques comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT demouraeduardoguimaraeshourneaux comparisonoftheefficiencyof22gversus25gneedlesineusfnaforsolidpancreaticmassassessmentasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |