Needle size has only a limited effect on outcomes in EUS-guided fine needle aspiration: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Digestive Diseases and Sciences

Volumn 58, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1026-1034

  Affolter, Kajsa E ^a   Schmidt, Robert L ^a   Matynia, Anna P ^a   Adler, Douglas G ^a   Factor, Rachel E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF UTAH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

EUS; FNA; Gauge; Pancreas

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND GUIDED FINE NEEDLE BIOPSY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; LYMPHADENOPATHY; META ANALYSIS; NEEDLE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUNCTURE; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW;

ENDOSCOPIC ULTRASOUND-GUIDED FINE NEEDLE ASPIRATION; ENDOSONOGRAPHY; HUMANS; NEEDLES; PANCREAS; PANCREATIC NEOPLASMS;

EID: 84876670031     PISSN: 01632116     EISSN: 15732568     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10620-012-2439-2     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Fabbri C, Polifemo AM, Luigiano C, et al. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in solid pancreatic masses: a prospective comparative study with randomisation of needle sequence. Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:647-652.
2. Schmidt RL, Factor RE, Affolter KE, et al. Methods specification for diagnostic test accuracy studies in fine-needle aspiration cytology: a survey of reporting practice. Am J Clin Pathol. 2012;137:132-141.
3. Camellini L, Carlinfante G, Azzolini F, et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing 22G and 25G needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of solid lesions. Endoscopy. 2011;43:709-715.
4. Yusuf TE, Ho S, Pavey DA, Michael H, Gress FG. Retrospective analysis of the utility of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) in pancreatic masses, using a 22-gauge or 25-gauge needle system: a multicenter experience. Endoscopy. 2009;41:445-448.
5. Siddiqui UD, Rossi F, Rosenthal LS, Padda MS, Murali-Dharan V, Aslanian HR. EUS-guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses: a prospective, randomized trial comparing 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles. Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1093-1097.
6. Song TJ, Kim JH, Lee SS, et al. The prospective randomized, controlled trial of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration using 22G and 19G aspiration needles for solid pancreatic or peripancreatic masses. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:1739-1745.
7. Sakamoto H, Kitano M, Komaki T, et al. Prospective comparative study of the EUS guided 25-gauge FNA needle with the 19-gauge trucut needle and 22-gauge FNA needle in patients with solid pancreatic masses. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009;24:384-390.
8. Imazu H, Uchiyama Y, Kakutani H, et al. A prospective comparison of EUS-guided FNA using 25-gauge and 22-gauge needles. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2009;2009:Article ID 546390.
9. Lee JH, Stewart J, Ross WA, Anandasabapathy S, Xiao L, Staerkel G. Blinded prospective comparison of the performance of 22-gauge and 25-gauge needles in endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of the pancreas and peri-pancreatic lesions. Dig Dis Sci. 2009;54:2274-2281.
10. Othman MO, Raimondo M. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration of pancreatic lesions: Is a smaller needle safer and better? Dig Liver Dis. 2011;43:587-588.
11. Gerke H. EUS-guided FNA: better samples with smaller needles? Gastrointest Endosc. 2009;70:1098-1100.
12. Siddiqui UD, Aslanian HR. For EUS-Guided FNA of solid pancreatic masses, bigger is not always better. Am J Gastroenterol. 2011;106:801-802.
13. Yoshinaga S, Suzuki H, Oda I, Saito Y. Role of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) for diagnosis of solid pancreatic masses. Dig Endosc. 2011;23:29-33.
14. Itoi T, Itokawa F, Sofuni A, et al. Puncture of solid pancreatic tumors guided by endoscopic ultrasonography: a pilot study series comparing trucut and 19-gauge and 22-gauge aspiration needles. Endoscopy. 2005;37:362-366.
15. Leeflang MM, Deeks JJ, Gatsonis C, Bossuyt PM, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Working Group. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:889-897.
16. Deeks JJ, Bossuyt P, Gatsonis C, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2009. http://srdta.cochrane.org/
17. Harbord RM, Whiting P. Metandi: meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy using hierarchical logistic regression. Stata J. 2009;9:211-229.
18. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539-1558.
19. Siddiqui AA, Lyles T, Avula H, Davila R. Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration of pancreatic masses in a veteran population: comparison of results with 22- and 25-gauge needles [letter to the editor]. Pancreas. 2010;39:685-686.
20. Kida M, Araki M, Miyazawa S, et al. Comparison of diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration with 22- and 25-gauge needles in the same patients. J Interv Gastroenterol. 2011;1:102-107.
21. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529-536.