Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Dec 6, 2021; 9(34): 10507-10517
Published online Dec 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507
Published online Dec 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507
Table 4 Statistical analyses between methods with and without rapid on-site evaluation
| FNA vs FNA + ROSE (P value) | FNA vs FNB (P value) | FNA vs FNB + ROSE (P value) | FNA + ROSE vs FNB (P value) | FNA + ROSE vs FNB + ROSE (P value) | FNB vs FNB + ROSE (P value) | |
| Sensitivity | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | 0.142 | 0.350 | 0.686 |
| Specificity | 0.014 | 0.014 | 0.010 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.182 |
| Positive likelihood ratio | NA | < 0.001 | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Negative likelihood ratio | 0.637 | 0.614 | 0.677 | 0.891 | 0.941 | 0.956 |
| Accuracy | 0.003 | 0.005 | 0.074 | 0.320 | 0.228 | 0.658 |
- Citation: Moura DTH, McCarty TR, Jirapinyo P, Ribeiro IB, Farias GFA, Madruga-Neto AC, Ryou M, Thompson CC. Endoscopic ultrasound fine needle aspiration vs fine needle biopsy in solid lesions: A multi-center analysis. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(34): 10507-10517
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i34/10507.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i34.10507