ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2022
Prospective cohort of cryobiopsy in interstitial lung diseases: a single center experience.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Guidelines for Minimizing Bleeding Risk During Bronchoscopic Procedures.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2026Guideline
- Yield and safety of different biopsy types in interstitial lung disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic performance and safety of transbronchial lung cryobiopsy in the study of interstitial lung diseases: a single-center experience.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Updates in Diagnostic Tools for ILD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
rationaleTransbronchial cryobiopsy has been increasingly used to diagnose interstitial lung diseases. However, there is uncertainty regarding its accuracy and risks, mainly due to a paucity of prospective or randomized trials comparing cryobiopsy to surgical biopsy.
objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic yield and complications of cryobiopsy in patients selected by multidisciplinary discussion.
methodsThis was a prospective cohort from 2017 to 2019. We included consecutive patients with suspected interstitial lung diseases being considered for lung biopsy presented at our multidisciplinary meeting. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOf 112 patients, we recommended no biopsy in 31, transbronchial forceps biopsy in 16, cryobiopsy in 54 and surgical biopsy in 11. By the end of the study, 34 patients had had cryobiopsy and 24 patients, surgical biopsy. Overall pathologic and multidisciplinary diagnostic yield of cryobiopsy was 47.1% and 61.8%, respectively. The yield increased over time for both pathologic (year 1: 28.6%, year 2: 54.5%, year 3: 66.7%, p = 0.161) and multidisciplinary (year 1: 50%, year 2: 63.6%, year 3: 77.8%, p = 0.412) diagnosis. Overall rate of grade 4 bleeding after cryobiopsy was 11.8%. Cryobiopsy required less chest tube placement (11.8% vs 100%, p < 0.001) and less hospitalizations compared to surgical biopsy (26.5% vs 95.7%, p < 0.001), but hospitalized patients had a longer median hospital stay (2 days vs 1 day, p = 0.004).
conclusionsDiagnostic yield of cryobiopsy increased over time but the overall grade 4 bleeding rate was 11.8%.
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.