Trial reportChest2017
Stylet Use Does Not Improve Diagnostic Outcomes in Endobronchial Ultrasonographic Transbronchial Needle Aspiration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Chest, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the utility of suction and inner-stylet of EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2018Trial
- Molecular Analysis of EBUS-TBNA Samples for Nodal Staging in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.Cancers · 2026Review
- Scoping out sarcoidosis: the evolving role of bronchoscopy.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Review
- Article
- Do stylet needles improve diagnostic accuracy in thyroid fine-needle aspiration? A retrospective analysis.BMC endocrine disorders · 2025Article
- Minimally Invasive Sampling of Mediastinal Lesions.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Thyroid fine needle aspiration specimen adequacy: a noninferiority study and cost-effectiveness comparison of puncture needles.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Clinical validity of 25-gauge endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle in lymph node staging of lung cancer.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Article
- Convex probe endobronchial ultrasound: historical, contemporary, and cutting-edge applications.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Review
- Waste not, want not: diagnostic material found in suction syringe aspirate during endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration.Journal of thoracic disease · 2019Article
- Guidelines for endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA): Joint Indian Chest Society (ICS)/Indian Association for Bronchology (IAB) recommendations.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest SocietyArticle
- Slow-pull capillary techniqueTherapeutic advances in respiratory diseaseArticle
- Diagnosis and staging of lung cancer with the use of one single echoendoscope in both the trachea and the esophagus: A practical guide.Endoscopic ultrasoundArticle
- Endobronchial Ultrasound-Guided Transbronchial Needle Aspiration: Techniques and Challenges.Journal of cytologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasonographically guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) of thoracic structures is a commonly performed tissue sampling technique. The use of an inner-stylet in the EBUS needle has never been rigorously evaluated and may be unnecessary.
methodsIn a prospective randomized single-blind controlled clinical trial, patients with a clinical indication for EBUS-TBNA underwent lymph node sampling using both with-stylet and without-stylet techniques. Sample adequacy, diagnostic yield, and various cytologic quality measures were compared.
resultsOne hundred twenty-one patients were enrolled, with 194 lymph nodes sampled, each using both with-stylet and without-stylet techniques. There was no significant difference in sample adequacy or diagnostic yield between techniques. The without-stylet technique resulted in adequate samples in 87% of the 194 study lymph nodes, which was no different from the with-stylet adequacy rate (82%; P = .371). The with-stylet technique resulted in a diagnosis in 50 of 194 samples (25.7%), which was similar to the without-stylet group (49 of 194 [25.2%]; P = .740). There was a high degree of concordance in the determination of adequacy (84.0%; 95% CI, 78.1-88.9) and diagnostic sample generation (95.4%; 95% CI, 91.2-97.9) between the two techniques. A similar qualitative number of lymphocytes, malignant cells, and bronchial respiratory epithelia were recovered using each technique.
conclusionsOmitting stylet use during EBUS-TBNA does not affect diagnostic outcomes and reduces procedural complexity. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.Gov: No. NCT 02201654; URL:www.clinicaltrials.gov.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.