ArticleJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology2018
Diagnostic Performance of Core Needle Biopsy and Fine Needle Aspiration Separately or Together in the Diagnosis of Intrathoracic Lesions Under C-arm Guidance.
Article in Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration (FNA) and core needle biopsy (CNB) of intrathoracic lesions using the same coaxial guide-needle under a C-arm Cone-Beam computed tomography system. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred and eighty-eight patients (181 male, 107 female; 65.8 ± 13.3 years) with 293 lesions underwent 300 procedures, in which both FNA and CNB were performed. After inserting the coaxial guide-needle into the target lesion, we performed 18-gauge CNB, followed by 20-gauge FNA through the same coaxial guide-needle. The comparison of the procedures in which both showed adequate sample was performed with McNemar's test (n = 229).
resultsOf 300 procedures, 293 were technically successful. Adequate samples were obtained in 248/300 FNA and 288/300 CNB cases. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of malignancy were respectively 84.7% (133/157), 100% (72/72) for FNA, when atypical cells included benign entity; 97.5% (153/157), 100% (72/72) for FNA, when atypical cells included malignancy; 97.6% (162/166), 100% (102/102) for CNB; and 100% (166/166), 100% (102/102) for combined FNA and CNB. Diagnosis of malignancy was significantly higher for CNB than for FNA (
conclusionsCombined use of CNB and FNA using the same coaxial guide-needle showed better diagnostic performance than using one alone. When comparing CNB and FNA, CNB showed significantly better performance, when atypical cells included a benign entity in FNA.
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.