2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.gie.2022.07.026
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Diagnostic accuracy of EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy sampling by macroscopic on-site evaluation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Mohan et al conducted a meta‐analysis of the diagnostic outcome of EUS‐guided tissue acquisition with MOSE 5 . The pooled accuracy of FNA/B specimens in yielding a pathologic diagnosis by MOSE was 91.3% (95% CI: 88.6–93.3), with a pooled sensitivity of 91.5% (95% CI: 88.6–93.6), pooled specificity of 98.9% (95% CI: 96.6–99.7), pooled PPV of 98.8% (95% CI: 97.4–99.5), and pooled NPV of 55.5% (95% CI: 46.9–63.9).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mohan et al conducted a meta‐analysis of the diagnostic outcome of EUS‐guided tissue acquisition with MOSE 5 . The pooled accuracy of FNA/B specimens in yielding a pathologic diagnosis by MOSE was 91.3% (95% CI: 88.6–93.3), with a pooled sensitivity of 91.5% (95% CI: 88.6–93.6), pooled specificity of 98.9% (95% CI: 96.6–99.7), pooled PPV of 98.8% (95% CI: 97.4–99.5), and pooled NPV of 55.5% (95% CI: 46.9–63.9).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…No cytopathologist was present when the samples were collected, and no macroscopic on-site measurement was used in this study in order to maintain the comparison of one-to-one passes for each group [ 17 , 18 ]. The EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB visible cores were collected separately and inspected visually.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A meta-analysis examining the diagnostic parameters of EUS-guided tissue acquisition with MOSE included 14 studies with 1508 lesions in 1489 patients. 16 It revealed that the pooled accuracy of FNA and/or FNB specimens for achieving a pathologic diagnosis via MOSE was 91.3%, with a pooled sensitivity of 91.5% and a pooled specificity of 98.9%.Subgroup analyses utilizing newer-generation FNB needles, such as those with Franseen or Fork-tip shapes, demonstrated similar pooled rates of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity at 90.6%, 91.5%, and 98.2%, respectively. The study determined that MOSE exhibited excellent diagnostic parameters for both EUS-FNA and FNB.…”
Section: Macroscopic On-site Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The utility of MOSE in EUS‐FNA has been established, and its effectiveness during EUS‐FNB has also been assessed recently. A meta‐analysis examining the diagnostic parameters of EUS‐guided tissue acquisition with MOSE included 14 studies with 1508 lesions in 1489 patients 16 . It revealed that the pooled accuracy of FNA and/or FNB specimens for achieving a pathologic diagnosis via MOSE was 91.3%, with a pooled sensitivity of 91.5% and a pooled specificity of 98.9%.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%