Table 1.
Comparative studies: 22 G vs. 25 G needle
| Author (year) | Needle | Patients (n) | Passes (n) | Ease (%) | Failure (%) | Adequacy (%) | Yield (%) |
| Yusuf (2009) | 22G | 540 | NR | NR | NR | NR | 84 |
| 25G | 302 | NR | NR | NR | 92 | 92 | |
| Sakamoto (2009) | 22G | 24 | 2 | 79 | 21 | NR | 75 |
| 25G | 24 | 2 | 100 | 0 | NR | 92 | |
| Imazu (2009) | 22G | 43 | 2 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 1.64 | 81 |
| 25G | 43 | 2 | 1.9 | 0 | 1.5 | 77 | |
| Lee* (2009) | 22G | 12 | 2 | NR | 25 | NR | NR |
| 25G | 12 | 2 | NR | 0 | NR | NR | |
| Siddiqui* (2009) | 22G | 64 | 2.6 | 79.7 | 17 | NR | 87 |
| 25G | 67 | 2.6 | 85.1 | 15 | NR | 95 | |
| Fabri* (2011) | 22G | 50 | 2 | NR | 0 | 2.1** | 86 |
| 25G | 50 | 2 | NR | 0 | 2.4 | 94 | |
| Camellini* (2011) | 22G | 64 | 3.6 | NR | NR | 6.25 | 87 |
| 25G | 63 | 3.5 | NR | NR | 3.17 | 89 |
*
Randomized controlled trials;
**
Results expressed in a as a mean in a 5 points numerical score scale; NR: no reported.