Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28840019›Full record

ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2017

Bronchoscopy with endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration

Mark L Munoz, Noah Lechtzin, Qing Kay Li, KoPen Wang, Lonny B Yarmus, Hans J Lee, David J Feller-Kopman

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Recent developments in advanced diagnostic bronchoscopy.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mark L MunozDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Noah LechtzinDepartment of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Qing Kay LiDepartment of Pathology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
KoPen WangSection of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Lonny B YarmusSection of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Hans J LeeSection of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
David J Feller-KopmanSection of Interventional Pulmonology, Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Johns Hopkins University · USJohns Hopkins Medicine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn evaluating patients with suspected lung cancer, it is important to not only obtain a tissue diagnosis, but also to obtain enough tissue for both histologic and molecular analysis in order to appropriately stage the patient with a safe and efficient strategy. The diagnostic approach may often be dependent on local resources and practice patterns rather than current guidelines. We Describe lung cancer staging at two large academic medical centers to identify the impact different procedural approaches have on patient outcomes.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients undergoing a lung cancer diagnostic evaluation at two multidisciplinary centers during a 1-year period. Identifying complication rates and the need for multiple biopsies as our primary outcomes, we developed a multivariate regression model to determine features associated with complications and need for multiple biopsies.

resultsOf 830 patients, 285 patients were diagnosed with lung cancers during the study period. Those staged at the institution without an endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) program were more likely to require multiple biopsies (OR 3.62, 95% CI: 1.71-7.67, P=0.001) and suffer complications associated with the diagnostic procedure (OR 10.2, 95% CI: 3.08-33.58, P<0.001). Initial staging with transthoracic needle aspiration (TTNA) and conventional bronchoscopy were associated with greater need for subsequent biopsies (OR 8.05 and 14.00, 95% CI: 3.43-18.87 and 5.17-37.86, respectively) and higher complication rates (OR 37.75 and 7.20, 95% CI: 10.33-137.96 and 1.36-37.98, respectively).

conclusionsLung cancer evaluation at centers with a dedicated EBUS program results in fewer biopsies and complications than at multidisciplinary counterparts without an EBUS program.

Indexed as

Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)lung cancertransthoracic needle aspiration (TTNA)

Identifiers

PMID28840019
PMCPMC5542941
OpenAlexW2737256622

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.