BACKGROUND: An increasing number of studies have been conducted on the use of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided needle sampling for upper @entity344 (SEL). However, reported diagnostic efficacy varies greatly. OBJECTIVE: To summarize up current evidences on the diagnostic efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling for @entity75 . METHOD: A reproducible strategy was used to search four databases. Search results were evaluated for eligibility, and the quality of eligible studies was assessed by QUADAS-2. Pooled efficacy of EUS-guided needle sampling in @entity75 was calculated. Procedure-related complications, diagnostic errors, and independent factors related to a higher success rate were also recorded and analyzed. RESULTS: Seventeen studies, comprising 978 attempts of EUS-guided needle sampling, were included in a meta-analysis. Pooled diagnostic rate of EUS-guided needle sampling was 59.9  %, with a heterogeneity I (2) of 55.2  %. Subgroup analysis showed no difference in diagnostic rate among fine needle aspiration (FNA), trucut needle biopsy ( @entity17341 ), and fine needle biopsy (FNB), or among 19-, 22-, and 25-G needles. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression suggested that the cell block method might be correlated with a higher diagnostic rate. Few severe complications were reported. Diagnosis errors were rare. CONCLUSION: EUS-guided needle sampling is a safe, but only moderately effective method for pathology diagnosis of @entity75 . Choice of @entity17341 does not seem to alter the overall diagnostic rate.

Diagnostic efficacy of endoscopic ultrasound-guided needle sampling for upper XXXX : a meta-analysis.

@entity75 :: ('MESH:D001927', 'Disease') :: ['upper GI SEL'] @entity344 :: ('MESH:D005767', 'Disease') :: ['gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions'] @entity17341 :: ('5315', 'Gene') :: ['FNA/TCB/FNB, or 19  G/22  G/25  G', 'TCB']
@entity344 :: (MESH:D005767,Disease) :: ['gastrointestinal subepithelial lesions']
