Is there a difference between 19G core biopsy needle and 22G core biopsy needle in diagnosing the correct etiology? - A meta-analysis and systematic review

doi:10.13105/wjma.v5.i2.54

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 5, Issue 2

This Article

Peer-Review Report of This Article

CrossCheck and Google Search of This Article

Academic Rules and Norms of This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Research Domain of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (11536)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, WORD series, HTML series, Figures (1-4) series, Tables (1-1) series.

Item

Count

PDF

571

WORD

223

HTML

6729

Figures (1-4)

549

Tables (1-1)

569

Sum=8641

Publishing Process of This Article

The chart showing Browse series, Download series.

Item

Count

Browse

1219

Download

1671

Sum=2890

Apr 26, 2017 (publication date) through Mar 14, 2026

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (0)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Meta-Analysis

ISSN

2308-3840

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

- Full Article with Cover (PDF)
- Full Article (XML)

Meta-Analysis

World J Meta-Anal. Apr 26, 2017; 5(2): 54-62
Published online Apr 26, 2017. doi: 10.13105/wjma.v5.i2.54

Is there a difference between 19G core biopsy needle and 22G core biopsy needle in diagnosing the correct etiology? - A meta-analysis and systematic review

Manasa Kandula, Matthew L Bechtold, Kaninika Verma, Bhagat S Aulakh, Deepak Taneja, Srinivas R Puli

Manasa Kandula, Division of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL 61614, United States

Matthew L Bechtold, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Missouri School of Medicine at Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211, United States

Kaninika Verma, Bhagat S Aulakh, Deepak Taneja, Illinois Lung and Critical Care Institute, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL 61614, United States

Srinivas R Puli, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, Peoria, IL 61614, United States

Author contributions: Kandula M contributed to acquisition of data, data interpretation and analysis, and drafted the article; Bechtold M, Aulakh BS and Taneja D analyzed the data; Verma K, Aulakh BS and Taneja D interpreted the data; Puli SR contributed to conception and design of the study, verification of statistical methods; Bechtold M, Verma K, Aulakh BS, Taneja D and Puli SR revised the article, and approved the final version of published manuscript.

Conflict-of-interest statement: The authors deny any conflict of interest.

Data sharing statement: No additional data available.

Correspondence to: Manasa Kandula, MD, Division of Internal Medicine, University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria, 530 NE Glen Oak Avenue, Peoria, IL 61614, United States. manasakandula14@gmail.com

Telephone: +1-309-6249400 Fax: +1-309-6242291

Received: June 6, 2016
Peer-review started: June 12, 2016
First decision: September 13, 2016
Revised: November 13, 2016
Accepted: December 13, 2016
Article in press: December 14, 2016
Published online: April 26, 2017
Processing time: 226 Days and 1.2 Hours

Abstract

AIM

To compare the accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) 19G core biopsies and 22G core biopsies in diagnosing the correct etiology for a solid mass.

METHODS

Articles were searched in Medline, PubMed, and Ovid journals. Pooling was conducted by both fixed and random effects models.

RESULTS

Initial search identified 4460 reference articles for 19G and 22G, of these 670 relevant articles were selected and reviewed. Data was extracted from 6 studies for 19G (n = 289) and 16 studies for 22G (n = 592) which met the inclusion criteria. EUS 19G core biopsies had a pooled sensitivity of 91.6% (95%CI: 87.1-95.0) and pooled specificity of 95.9% (95%CI: 88.6-99.2), whereas EUS 22G had a pooled sensitivity of 83.3% (95%CI: 79.7-86.6) and pooled specificity of 64.3% (95%CI: 54.7-73.1). The positive likelihood ratio of EUS 19G core biopsies was 9.08 (95%CI: 1.12-73.66) and EUS 22G core biopsies was 1.99 (95%CI: 1.09-3.66). The negative likelihood ratio of EUS 19G core biopsies was 0.12 (95%CI: 0.07-0.24) and EUS 22G core biopsies was 0.25 (95%CI: 0.14-0.41). The diagnostic odds ratio was 84.74 (95%CI: 18.31-392.26) for 19G core biopsies and 10.55 (95% CI: 3.29-33.87) for 22G needles.

CONCLUSION

EUS 19G core biopsies have an excellent diagnostic value and seem to be better than EUS 22G biopsies in detecting the correct etiology for a solid mass.

Keywords: Endoscopic ultrasound guided fine needle aspiration; Solid mass lesions; Endoscopic ultrasound; Pancreatic mass; Pancreatic cytology; Core biopsies; 19G procore needle; Meta-analysis; Systematic review; 22G procore needle

Core tip: Management of pancreatic solid mass lesions relies greatly on accuracy of diagnosis of these lesions. Procore fine needle biopsy needles have been found to have a diagnostic accuracy comparable to, if not better than the standard needles in diagnosing the intestinal and extra-intestinal mass lesions. Amongst the Procore needles, the 19G and 22G Procore needles have both been shown to obtain good quality core tissue samples but both have unique characteristics of their own. This meta-analysis compares the feasibility and accuracy of 19G and 22G Procore needles in determining the diagnosis of solid mass lesions.