Table 2.

Summary or recent studies on different types of EUS needles.

Study (Year)	Study Type	Study Sample	Objective	Localization	Device	Results
Mangiavillano et al., 2021	Multicenter study	378 patients	Diagnostic yield and accuracy of MOSE with different needle sizes	Pancreatic and extra-pancreatic lesions	Procore® Acquire® Echotip ultra® Sharkcore®	Association with the diagnostic yield of MOSE -larger needle diameter -≥3 needle passes
Gkolfakis et al., 2022	Network meta-analysis	16 RCTs 1934 patients	Compare the diagnostic accuracy of available FNB needles for sampling of solid pancreatic lesions	Solid pancreatic lesions	22/25G FNA 20 G Side-fenestrated forward-facing bevel 22 G Franseen 19/22/25 G Fork-tip 21/22 G Menghini-tip 22/25 G Reverse bevel	Franseen 22 G -AUC 0.89 for accuracy 0.94 for adequacy Fork-tip needles 22 G -0.76 for accuracy -0.73 for adequacy 25 G Franseen and 25 G Fork-tip needles were not superior to 22 G reverse-bevel needles
Li et al., 2022	Meta-analysis	18 RCTs 2718 patients	Compare the diagnostic value and safety of FNA and FNB—needles	Pancreatic and extra-pancreatic lesions		-Solid pancreatic lesions: no difference in diagnostic accuracy -Overall gastrointestinal lesions: better diagnostic accuracy with FNB needles
Al-Haddad et al., 2021	Multicenter prospective randomized trial	250 patients	Impact of three FNA needles on -diagnostic accuracy -accrue fluid for tumor markers	Pancreatic cystic lesions	19 G Fle x19 G 22 G	-Overall success rate for aspiration: higher for 19 G Flex and 22 G compared with 19 G -No difference in the percentage of cyst volume aspirated by needle type

AUC area under the curve, EUS endoscopic ultrasound, FNA fine needle aspiration, FNB fine needle biopsy, MOSE Macroscopic one-site evaluation, RCT randomized controlled trial.