ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2021
Autofluorescence bronchoscope diagnosis for lung nodules and masses.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative technologies and their clinical prospects for early lung cancer screening.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical and Paraclinical Characteristics of Endobronchial Pulmonary Squamous Cell Carcinoma-A Brief Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study set out to enhance the positive detection rate of lung tumors, diagnosis of nodular lesions and improve the accuracy of lung cancer classification by evaluating the clinical value of autofluorescence bronchoscopy (AFB).
methodsForceps biopsy, brush biopsy, needle aspiration, and washing techniques were performed alone and in combination with AFB among 38 subjects who were analyzed cytologically and histologically.
resultsOur results showed that 33 out of 38 patients were diagnosed with lung cancer, with an overall positive diagnostic rate of 86.8% when the combined methods and AFB was performed; the positive diagnostic rates obtained by forceps, needle aspiration, brush biopsy and washing methods were 68.4%, 84.2%, 55.3% and 36.8%, respectively. Compared to the overall positive rate, the positive diagnostic rates detected by forceps and needle aspiration were not statistically significant (P>0.05). However, the positive rates gained by the brush biopsy and washing method were statistically significant (P<0.01). In addition, we compared the 38 cases evaluated with AFB and 43 cases evaluated with "traditional" white light bronchoscopy (WLB), using the same methods.
conclusionsAFB and WLB markedly improved the positive diagnosis rate when combined with forceps and needle aspiration. The overall positive diagnostic rate of lung cancer scanned by WLB was increased from 60.5% to 86.8% (P<0.01) by using the combined methods of forceps, brush biopsy, needle aspiration and washing. Moreover, the accuracy of lung cancer classification combined with cytology and cell immunohistochemistry was improved. These results showed that a variety of inspection techniques and diagnostic technologies effectively play a complementary role in the diagnosis and classification of lung cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34377254PMC8340158W3188661587What 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.