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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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