ArticleCureus2022
Diagnostic Accuracy and Adequacy of Computed Tomography Versus Fluoroscopy-Guided Percutaneous Transpedicular Biopsy of Spinal Lesions.
Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of CT- vs. Fluoroscopic-Guided Biopsy in Spinal Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Image-Guided Percutaneous Spinal Biopsy: CT or C-Arm Guidance?The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2026Review
- Malassezia restricta as an unexpected cause of infectious osteomyelitis diagnosed by metagenomic sequencing: a case report and literature review.BMC infectious diseases · 2024Review
- Post-Discectomy Infection: A Critical Review and Suggestion of a Management Algorithm.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Factors Predicting the Final Diagnosis in Image-Guided Percutaneous Needle Biopsy for Suspected Spinal Tumors.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Transpedicular biopsy of spinal lesions is imperative for the generation of a definite diagnosis. Thus far, literature comparing the accuracy and adequacy between fluoroscopy-guided and computed tomography (CT)-guided transpedicular biopsy of spinal lesions is scarce. We aim to compare the accuracy and adequacy of samples collected with the two techniques at the largest tertiary hospital in Malaysia. Materials and methods A total of 60 patients (37 patients with spinal infection and 23 patients with spinal tumour) underwent percutaneous transpedicular biopsy of spinal lesions from January 2013 to December 2017 at a tertiary centre. Demographic data, biopsy method (fluoroscopy-guided and CT-guided), diagnosis, adequacy, and accuracy of samples obtained were assessed. Results Among the 60 samples obtained, only two samples (3.3%) were deemed inadequate. There were 10 biopsy samples (16.7%) that were inaccurate. There was no statistical difference between fluoroscopy-guided and CT-guided transpedicular biopsy in terms of accuracy (p = 0.731) and adequacy (p = 0.492). Conclusions Fluoroscopy-guided and CT-guided transpedicular biopsy of spinal lesions offer similar accuracy and adequacy. Fluoroscopy-guided biopsy of the spinal lesion will be an option for spine surgeons when CT-guided biopsy is not available.
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.