Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32629740›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided needle biopsy in undiagnosed pleural effusions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Zhidi Lin, Donghong Wu, Jinlin Wang, Chuqiao Wang, Mingkai Huang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Ultrasonic elastography-guided pleural biopsyThe European respiratory journal · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Diagnostics in Pleural Disease.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020
    Review
  9. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Zhidi LinDepartment of Respiratory Disease, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health.
Donghong WuDepartment of Respiratory Disease, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health.
Jinlin WangDepartment of Respiratory Disease, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health.ORCID 0000-0003-0525-6649
Chuqiao WangDepartment of Respiratory Disease, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health.
Mingkai HuangDepartment of Respiratory Disease, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, State Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Health.
First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveUndiagnosed pleural effusions (UPEs) are a common problem of respiratory medicine, leading to an increased diagnostic burden globally. However, the most efficient and cost-effective approaches to UPEs remain controversial. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic value of ultrasound-guided needle biopsy (UGNB) in UPEs.

methodsWe conducted a search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and reference lists of retrieved studies with no publication data limitation. Articles that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of UGNB in UPEs were included. The quality of eligible studies was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. The diagnostic value of UGNB was evaluated by calculating the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds rate, and the area under the curve for the summary receiver operating characteristic curve using a random effects model.

resultsSeven studies comprising 165 patients with UPEs met the inclusion criteria. UGNB had a pooled sensitivity of 83% (95% confidence intervals [CI], 75% - 89%), a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 90% - 100%), a positive likelihood ratio of 8.89 (95% CI, 3.29 - 24.02), a negative likelihood ratio of 0.23 (95% CI, 0.16 - 0.33), a diagnostic odds rate of 51.47 (95% CI, 14.70 - 180.16), and an area under the curve of 0.94. Six pneumothorax cases (3.6%), 5 local wound infections (3.0%), and 1 empyema case (less than 1%) were observed. There was no significant heterogeneity or publication bias in this study.

conclusionsBased on current evidence, UGNB is a safe and convenient procedure with a high accuracy for diagnosing UPEs. However, physicians should still be cautious in interpreting negative UGNB results.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBiopsy, NeedleEmpyemaHumansImage-Guided BiopsyMiddle AgedPleural EffusionPneumothoraxSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography, InterventionalWound InfectionYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32629740
PMCPMC7337470
OpenAlexW3039315429

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.