ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2020
Evaluating the efficacy of bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of early stage lung cancer.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is there a role for fibreoptic bronchoscopy in patients presenting with haemoptysis and negative CT? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open respiratory research · 2024Pooled it
- Article
- Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy and Transthoracic Sampling of Peripheral Pulmonary Nodules: One Step Back, One Leap Forward for the Evaluation of Technology Targeting the Lung Periphery.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2023Article
- Impact of preoperative biopsy on tumor spread through air spaces in stage I non-small cell lung cancer: a propensity score-matched study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Novel diagnostic techniques for lung cancer are rapidly evolving. Specifically, several novel changes to bronchoscopy are reaching clinical evaluation. It is critical to think about historical standards for evaluating new diagnostic testing, and put those concepts into the framework of lung cancer. Often a thorough evaluation of new technology is not performed as a part of regulatory marketing clearance. Therefore, we must consider how to best study novel testing beyond these regulatory minimums. There are several methodological principles that can achieve this goal such as using a control arm, more thorough reporting of enrolled patients, consecutive patient enrollment, and adequate sample size. We hope clinicians, particularly those performing bronchoscopy for lung nodules, will feel empowered to critically appraise the evaluation of new diagnostic testing for lung cancer moving forward.
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.