ArticlePolish journal of radiology2020
Percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy for pulmonary nodules: a retrospective study of a comparison between C-arm cone-beam computed tomography and conventional computed tomography guidance.
Article in Polish journal of radiology, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chinese expert consensus on cone-beam CT-guided diagnosis, localization and treatment for pulmonary nodules.Thoracic cancer · 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the safety and diagnostic performance of pulmonary nodule biopsies using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) guidance compared with conventional CT (CCT) guidance. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients who had pulmonary nodules and underwent a transthoracic needle biopsy at the interventional unit from January 1, 2013 to June 30, 2018 were enrolled. CBCT with XperGuide software was used to biopsy 100 nodules, and CCT guidance was used to biopsy 266 nodules. The two techniques were compared in terms of radiation exposure, complications, and diagnostic accuracy. The
resultsThe characteristics of the nodules were similar between CBCT and CCT guidance. The median radiation doses were not significantly different between the two groups (5.6 mGy vs. 5.4 mGy;
conclusionsCBCT guidance in pulmonary nodule biopsy provided higher diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy than CCT guidance. However, the complication rates and effective radiation doses did not differ between both techniques.
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.