ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Waste not, want not: diagnostic material found in suction syringe aspirate during endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Does needle-type increase the diagnostic yield of malignancies in endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA)?-a prospective comparative study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2022Article
- Recent advances in convex probe endobronchial ultrasound: a narrative review.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Review
- Controversies in endobronchial ultrasound.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a frequently performed procedure. Suction is utilized during this procedure and may occasionally result in the collection of aspirated material, the diagnostic utility of which is uncertain. This study aims to determine the contents of the suction syringe aspirate and its diagnostic value.
methodsThe suction syringe aspirate was pooled in a container and sent for analysis. We retrospectively reviewed the cytological outcomes of these specimens in comparison to the diagnosis determined by EBUS-TBNA between 2015-2018. The primary outcome was the percent agreement between the diagnostic material found in the suction syringe aspirate, and the final diagnosis established by EBUS-TBNA.
resultsForty-four patients were included. Percent agreement was calculated as the percent in which the suction syringe aspirate diagnosis agreed with the EBUS-TBNA diagnosis. The percent agreement of any diagnosis was 90.9% (95% CI: 78.7-97.2%). Two of the 44 diagnoses (4.5%) were established based solely on the suction syringe aspirate, both cases of granulomatous inflammation.
conclusionsOur results suggest that material collected in the suction syringe has a very high percent agreement with the final diagnosis established by EBUS-TBNA. Furthermore, the suction syringe aspirate may represent the sole diagnostic material in nearly 5% of cases. Given the additional diagnostic material in the suction syringe aspirate, it is reasonable to pool the aspirate with the primary specimen in an effort to enrich the overall diagnostic specimen. This practice may improve the likelihood that the specimen will be sufficient for additional molecular analysis, although further study is necessary. Care must be taken when more than one needle is involved to ensure that a new suction syringe is also used to avoid inadvertent upstaging by specimen contamination.
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.