Trial reportAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Randomized trial of biopsy needle sandblasting in coaxial core-needle liver biopsy: no significant improvement in ultrasound visibility, pain, or tissue yield.
Trial report in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeOptimizing biopsy needle design could enhance procedural performance and patient comfort during core-needle liver biopsy (CNLB). This study aimed to compare a modified biopsy needle with a conventional one in terms of ultrasound visibility, patient-reported pain intensity, and diagnostic tissue yield.
methodsIn this randomized, triple-blind clinical trial, 70 adult patients scheduled for CNLB at Imam Reza Hospital (Mashhad, Iran) were enrolled and randomly assigned to either a conventional or modified needle group, both of which were commercially available. The modified needle was manufactured by doubling the sandblasting duration, which increased surface roughness and tip sharpness (2.74 to 5.28 Newtons). Pain intensity was measured using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at four time points: during the procedure, 10 min after, 30 min after, and at discharge. The ultrasound visibility and the number of portal tracts in biopsy specimens were assessed independently. Patients requiring intravenous analgesics due to severe pain were excluded from further analysis.
results33 participants in the conventional biopsy needle group and 34 in the modified biopsy needle group completed all evaluations. There were no significant differences between groups in terms of age (P = 0.85), sex (P = 0.38), biopsy indication (P = 0.50), ultrasound visibility (P = 0.12), pain intensity at any time point (P > 0.05), and the number of portal tracts in biopsy specimens (P = 0.74). Despite the non-significant differences, both groups demonstrated low pain scores.
conclusionThe modified biopsy needle showed no significant improvement over the conventional needle regarding visibility, patient pain, and tissue adequacy. Therefore, the choice between biopsy needles remains a matter of clinical preference, user familiarity, and cost-effectiveness rather than significant differences in performance.
trial registrationIRCT20250422065439N1.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41065828What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.