{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030303030303030304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.345679012345679, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Randomized non‐inferiority trial comparing diagnostic yield of cytopathologist‐guided versus seven passes for endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration of pancreatic masses

To improve diagnostic yield of endoscopic ultrasound‐guided fine‐needle aspiration (EUS‐FNA) in solid pancreatic lesions, on‐site cytology review has been recommended. Because this is not widely available throughout the world, the aim of the present study was to compare the diagnostic yield of EUS‐FNA carried out with rapid on‐site evaluation (ROSE) versus seven FNA passes without ROSE in pancreatic masses.