***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE To assess and compare the quality of nonstructured and structured abstract s  of original research articles in three medical journals . DESIGN Blind , criterion-based observational study . SAMPLE R and om sample of 300 abstract s ( 25 abstract s per journal each year ) of articles published in the British Medical Journal ( BMJ ) , the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association ( JAMA ) in 1988 and 1989 ( nonstructured abstract s )  and in 1991 and 1992  ( structured abstract s ) . MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The quality of abstract s  was measured against 33 objective criteria , which were divided into eight categories ( purpose , research design , setting , subjects , intervention , measurement of variables , results and conclusions ) . The quality score was determined by dividing the number of criteria present by the number applicable ; the score varied from 0 to 1 . RESULTS The overall mean quality scores for nonstructured and structured abstract s were 0.57 and 0.74 respectively ( p < 0.001 ) . The frequency in meeting the specific criteria was generally higher for the structured abstract s than for the nonstructured ones . The mean quality score was higher for nonstructured abstract s in JAMA than for those in BMJ ( 0.60 v. 0.54 , p < 0.05 ) . The scores for structured abstract s  did not differ significantly between the three journals . CONCLUSIONS The findings support recommendations that promote the use of structured abstract s. Further studies should be performed to assess the effect of time on the quality of abstract s and the extent to which abstract s reflect the content of the articles BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Histological examination of core tissue sample s may have advantages over cytology in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided sampling . We aim ed to evaluate the feasibility and efficiency of a new 22 G core biopsy needle . PATIENTS AND METHODS Consecutive patients with a pancreatic mass lesion or peri-intestinal lymphadenopathy sequentially underwent fine needle biopsy with both a newly developed 22 G core needle ( the FNB needle ) and a st and ard 22 G fine needle aspiration ( FNA ) needle , in r and omized order . RESULTS In 144 patients , mean age 48 years ( ± st and ard deviation [ SD ] 14 ; range 18 - 82 ) , with 145 lesions ( mean lesion size 39 ± 15 mm , range 15 - 99 ) , EUS-guided sampling was technically feasible with both needles in all patients . Mean number of passes to obtain sufficient tissue was 1.2 ± 0.5 with the core needle vs. 2.5 ± 0.9 with the st and ard needle ( P < 0.001 ) . FNB specimens were adequate for evaluation in 125 ( 86.2 % ) vs. 127 ( 87.6 % ) with FNA ( P = 0.72 ) . Among 139 patients available for follow-up , FNB provided a correct diagnosis in 110 ( 79.1 % ) and FNA in 112 ( 80.6 % ) ( P = 0.73 ) . Sensitivity , specificity , positive and negative predictive values , and accuracy for diagnosis of malignancy were 90 % , 100 % , 100 % , 93 % , 96 % for FNB and 77 % , 100 % , 100 % , 85 % , 92 % for FNA , respectively ( P > 0.05 ) . CONCLUSION FNB with the new 22 G core needle was technically feasible , efficient and comparable to FNA with a st and ard needle . The core needle required fewer passes to provide an adequate sample , offering potentially shorter procedure time Background : Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided fine needle aspiration ( FNA ) with bedside cytopathology is the gold st and ard for assessment of pancreatic , subepithelial , and other lesions in close proximity to the gastrointestinal tract , but it is time-consuming , has certain diagnostic limitations , and bedside cytopathology is not widely available . Aims : The goal of this study is to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS-guided FNA with on-site cytopathology and EUS-guided core biopsy . Methods : Twenty-six patients with gastrointestinal mass lesions requiring biopsy at a tertiary medical center were included in this retrospective analysis of a prospect i ve cohort . Two core biopsies were taken using a 22 gauge needle followed by FNA guided by a bedside cytopathologist at the same endoscopic session . The diagnostic yield and test characteristics of EUS core biopsy and EUS FNA with bedside cytopathology were examined . Results : The mean number of passes was 3.2 for FNA , and the mean procedure time was 39.4 minutes . The final diagnosis was malignant in 92.3 % . Sensitivity and specificity were 83 % and 100 % , respectively , for FNA , and 91.7 % and 100 % , respectively , for core biopsy . Diagnostic accuracy was 92.3 % for FNA and 84.6 % for core biopsy . The two approaches were in agreement in 88.4 % with a kappa statistic of 0.66 ( 95 % confidence interval 0.33 – 0.99 ) . Conclusions : An approach using two passes with a core biopsy needle is comparable to the current gold st and ard of FNA with bedside cytopathology . The performance of two core biopsies is time-efficient and could represent a good alternative to FNA with bedside cytopathology The specific needle sizes/types used in performing endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspirations ( EUS-FNA ) vary . The HD ProCore ( ™ ) is a 22-gauge beveled needle allowing for core biopsy along with aspiration material . In this study we compare this needle with a st and ard 22-gauge needle .  Between April 1 , 2011 and November 15 , 2011 , 18 patients undergoing EUS-FNA using the HD ProCore ( ™ ) needle were compared to a control group of 18 cases using the st and ard 22-gauge needle .  Smears were assessed for : three-dimensional clusters , thick obscuring clusters , monolayer sheets , cellularity , crowded obscuring single cells , blood , and nuclear staining . Cell blocks were assessed for cellularity and presence of diagnostic material . Records were review ed for the overall adequacy , number of FNA passes , and patient follow-up . Overall , the two needle groups demonstrated similar results for the cytology parameters , amount of diagnostic cell block material , adequacy , and accuracy . The mean number of passes to achieve adequacy varied between the groups [ 2.94 for the st and ard 22-gauge needle group versus 2.11 for the beveled needle group ( P=0.03 ) ] with no meaningful difference in case duration between needle groups . No complications were reported . The beveled EUS needle affords similar cytologic interpretability , adequacy , diagnostic accuracy , and amount of cell block material as a st and ard needle . There was a statistically significant trend toward fewer passes to achieve adequacy with the beveled EUS-FNA needle . Therefore , the EUS-FNA needle with a lateral bevel is a diagnostically similar alternative to st and ard endoscopy needles , the possibility that this beveled needle may improve per pass adequacy requires further verification Background and aims : Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine needle aspiration ( EUS‐FNA ) has a diagnostic accuracy of 70–90 % , depending on the site under evaluation . In order to improve EUS‐guided tissue sampling a novel 19‐gauge trucut‐type needle has been design ed to obtain core biopsies during EUS . We prospect ively evaluated the safety and accuracy  of EUS‐FNA alone versus combined EUS‐FNA and trucut needle biopsy ( TNB ) in patients referred to our Unit over a 3‐year period BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS The aims of this study were : firstly , to determine the usefulness of endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration ( EUS-FNA ) in obtaining tissue diagnosis of intramural and extraintestinal lesions ; secondly , to assess the immediate , acute , and 30-day complications in these patients ; and thirdly , to assess the impact of the tissue diagnoses on patient management . PATIENTS AND METHODS All  EUS-FNAs of extraintestinal mass lesions and intramural gastrointestinal tumors over a 26-month period were evaluated prospect ively . The reference st and ards for the final diagnosis were surgery ( n = 20 ) , repeat imaging ( n = 12 ) , clinical follow-up ( n = 4 ) , or death from disease ( n = 2 ) . Four patients were lost to follow-up . RESULTS Forty-two consecutive patients ( 24 men , 18 women ; mean age 59.7 years ) underwent EUS-FNA of extraintestinal mass lesions and intramural gastrointestinal tumors . Previous attempts at tissue diagnosis had failed in 52.4 % of the patients . The EUS-FNA cytological diagnoses included : 17 gastrointestinal stromal tumors , five esophageal cancers , five rectal cancers , one bronchogenic cyst , one foregut duplication cyst , and 13 other miscellaneous diagnoses . The mean number of passes needed to reach a diagnosis was 3.9 ( + /- 2.2 ) . The mean follow-up period was 13.1 months . The sensitivity , specificity , positive predictive value , negative predictive value , and accuracy of EUS-FNA  of extraintestinal and intramural tumors were 97 % , 100 % , 100 % , 90 % , and 98 % , respectively . No major complications were encountered . CONCLUSIONS EUS-FNA is a safe and accurate method that can provide a tissue diagnosis in intramural and extraintestinal mass lesions , especially when other modalities have failed . EUS-FNA significantly affects the management of patients by allowing them to be allocated to appropriate treatment and by avoiding the need for more invasive procedures to obtain tissue diagnosis Abstract Objective . Endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS)-guided fine-needle aspiration ( EUS-FNA ) may facilitate tissue sampling for histopathological diagnosis of subepithelial tumors ( SETs ) in the gastrointestinal ( GI ) tract . However , immunohistochemistry is not always feasible using EUS-FNA sample s due to the low quality of specimens often obtained by aspiration . This study aim ed to compare the use of 22-gauge ( G ) EUS-guided fine-needle biopsy ( EUS-FNB ) with 22 G EUS-FNA for core sampling used for histopathological examination , including immunohistochemistry , in patients with GI SETs . Methods . Twenty-eight patients with GI SETs ≥2 cm in size were prospect ively enrolled at five university hospitals in Korea between January and June 2013 . They were r and omized to undergo either  EUS-FNB  or  EUS-FNA . Results . A total of 22 patients was finally analyzed in this study : 10 and 12 patients underwent EUS-FNA and EUS-FNB  , respectively . Compared to the EUS-FNA group , the EUS-FNB group had a significantly lower median number of needle passes to obtain macroscopically optimal core sample s ( 4 vs. 2 , p = 0.025 ) ; higher yield rates of macroscopically and histologically optimal core sample s with three needle passes ( 30 % vs. 92 % , p = 0.006 ; 20 % vs. 75 % , p = 0.010 , respectively ) ; and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate ( 20 % vs. 75 % , p = 0.010 ) . No technical difficulties were encountered in either group . Conclusions . This study shows that EUS-FNB has a better ability to obtain histological core sample s and a higher diagnostic sufficiency rate than EUS-FNA and that EUS-FNB is a feasible , safe , and preferable modality for adequate core sampling for histopathological diagnosis of GI SETs Endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration ( EUS-FNA ) is widely used for diagnosis of pancreatic lesions . The Echotip Procore Needle ( Wilson-Cook Medical ) is a new 22 G fine biopsy needle ( FNB ) for obtaining core biopsy material at time of EUS . This study aim ed to compare the technical and diagnostic performance of conventional FNA and FNB .  Thirty-two patients met the design criteria for this prospect i ve paired cohort study . All lesions sample d were solid ( non-cystic ) pancreatic masses by EUS appearance . Patients were r and omized to receive FNA or FNB by first attempt . A cytopathologist performed on-site evaluations . Sample s were assessed for accuracy of diagnosis , cellularity , contamination , and sufficiency for ancillary studies . Technical and diagnostic performances were compared . Compared to FNA , there was a statistically significant decreased ability of FNB to achieve a diagnosis ( FNA 93.8 % , FNB 28.1 % , P < 0.001 ) . FNB was diagnostically superior to FNA in 1 of 32 cases . Technical failures were observed in five cases due to resistance to advancement of the FNB needle . Regarding operator perceived ease-of-use , FNA outper 
    Output:
    
Although not statistically significant ( P = 0.06 ) , by meta-regression , in the absence of ROSE , FNB showed a relatively better diagnostic adequacy .
The absence of ROSE was associated with a higher SMD , i. e. , in the presence of an onsite pathologist , FNA required relatively fewer passes to establish the diagnosis than in the absence of an onsite pathologist .
Conclusions There is no significant difference in the diagnostic yield between FNA and FNB , when FNA is accompanied by ROSE .
However , in the absence of ROSE , FNB is associated with a relatively better diagnostic adequacy in solid pancreatic lesions .
Also , FNB requires fewer passes to establish the diagnosis