Comparison of standard vs auxiliary (contrast or elastography) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 15, Issue 3

This Article

Academic Content and Language Evaluation 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

All Articles published online

Item

Count

PDF

HTML

Figures (1-6)

Tables (1-4)

Sum=29

Sep 20, 2025 (publication date) through Mar 6, 2025

Times Cited of This Article

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Methodology

ISSN

2222-0682

Publisher of This Article

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

Meta-Analysis

World J Methodol. Sep 20, 2025; 15(3): 97415
Published online Sep 20, 2025. doi: 10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.97415

Full Size Figure Download Figure

Figure 2 Risk of bias assessment using QUADAS-2 tool. A: Methodological quality for individual studies; B: Methodological quality summary graph.

Citation: Rath MM, Anirvan P, Varghese J, Tripathy TP, Patel RK, Panigrahi MK, Giri S. Comparison of standard vs auxiliary (contrast or elastography) endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration/biopsy in solid pancreatic lesions: A meta-analysis. World J Methodol 2025; 15(3): 97415
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2222-0682/full/v15/i3/97415.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v15.i3.97415