ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2020
Values of different specimen preparation methods for the diagnosis of lung cancer by endobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical values of different specimen preparation methods for the diagnosis of lung cancer by EBUS-TBNA.Diagnostic pathology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasound guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has been become an important procedure for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Our research identified the effects of different pathological preparation on the diagnosis of lung cancer for specimens obtained by biopsy.
methodsPatients were clinically considered if lung cancer was accompanied by mediastinal or hilar lymph node enlargement between March 2014 and November 2017. Specimens obtained by EBUS-TBNA were treated by three methods: traditional smear cytology, liquid-based cytology (LBC) and histopathology.
resultsOf a total of 154 puncture sites from 153 patients, the total positive rate of combination for the three pathological treatment types (histopathology, direct traditional smear, and LBC) was 77.3%. The diagnostic positive rate for histopathology was 68.6%, direct traditional smear was 65.6%, and LBC was 60.4%; there was no significant differences among the three single pathological treatment types (P = 0.29), but there was a statistically significant difference between the combination of three treatments and any single pathological treatment type (P = 0.01). The diagnostic sensitivities of histopathology combined with traditional smear and histopathology combined LBC were 94.4 and 92.8%, respectively, the specificities and PPVs were both 100%, and the diagnostic accuracies were 95.5 and 94.2%, respectively; the sensitivities, specificities and diagnostic accuracies above were all higher than those of single specimen treatment and lower than those of the three combined.
conclusionWhen EBUS-TBNA is used for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer, the use of histopathological sections combined with direct cytological smear should be sufficient and is the most economical choice.
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.