ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
CT-guided fine-needle aspiration biopsy of solitary pulmonary nodules under 15 mm in diameter: time for an afterthought?
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Computed Tomography (CT)-Guided Needle Biopsy of Lung Lesions: A Single Center Experience.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Economic Evaluation of a Novel Lung Cancer Diagnostic in a Population of Patients with a Positive Low-Dose Computed Tomography Result.Journal of health economics and outcomes research · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the total procedure time of CT-guided percutaneous core-needle biopsies of lung nodules: a retrospective analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2022Article
- Computed tomography-guided core needle biopsy for sub-centimeter pulmonary nodules.Kardiochirurgia i torakochirurgia polska = Polish journal of cardio-thoracic surgery · 2022Article
- Early stage lung cancer: pathologist's perspective.Journal of thoracic disease · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany studies on fine-needle aspiration biopsy (FNAB) for undetermined pulmonary nodules reported that diagnostic accuracy tended to decline, whereas complication prevalence raised as the size of nodule decreased. Reconsideration on the effectiveness of FNAB would be appropriate considering the dramatic increase in the identification of small nodules with screening programs and new demands of target therapies. The aim of this study was to verify the efficacy of FNAB in pulmonary nodules smaller than 15 mm.
methodsA retrospective, cohort study was conducted on patients with undetermined solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) who underwent computer tomography (CT) guided FNAB at our Institution from January 2012 to December 2014. Patients with SPNs with diameter up to 15 mm were considered; inclusion criteria comprised ASA 3, FEV1 <70% of predicted, cardiac comorbidity or previous chest surgery. FNAB diagnostic performance and clinical efficacy were calculated.
resultsOut of 225 patients referred for FNAB, 68 covered inclusion criteria. Forty-nine out of 68 smears (72%) were adequate for diagnosis. Specificity was 100% (95% CI: 77-100%), sensitivity was 100% (95% CI: 90-100%). Positive and negative predictive values were 1.0 (95% CI: 0.9-1.0) and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.77-1.0) respectively. A post-biopsy pneumothorax was detected in 27 cases (39%); the pneumothorax rate was significantly affected by the number of passages (P=0.01).
conclusionsThe satisfactory results of our study lead to reconsidering FNAB in patients with pulmonary nodules below 15 mm in diameter, especially in order to avoid unnecessary surgery.
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.