ArticleAnnals of thoracic medicine
Comparison of radial endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial lung biopsy with distance measurement versus with guide sheath in diagnosing peripheral pulmonary lesions with a diameter ≥3 cm by thin bronchoscope.
Article in Annals of thoracic medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Randomised trial of assessing diagnostic yield in transbronchial biopsy with a guide sheath.ERJ open research · 2025Article
- Does the guide sheath outperform the non-guide sheath method in endobronchial ultrasound-guided biopsy of peripheral pulmonary lesions?-a meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to explore the diagnostic values of radial endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial lung biopsy with distance (rEBUS-D-TBLB) measurement and with guide sheath (rEBUS-GS-TBLB) for peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) with a diameter ≥3 cm by thin bronchoscope. PATIENTS AND
methodsSix hundred and three patients with PPL (diameter ≥3 cm) were enrolled in this study. The subjects were divided into the rEBUS-D-TBLB and rEBUS-GS-TBLB groups by the random number table method. Patients were assigned to undergo rEBUS-D-TBLB or rEBUS-GS-TBLB, respectively. The histopathology, positive diagnosis rates, duration of the procedure, and postoperative adverse effects between the two groups were examined.
resultsA total of 569 patients were included in this study according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, with 282 cases in the rEBUS-D-TBLB group and 287 cases in the rEBUS-GS-TBLB group. For malignant diseases, the positive diagnosis rates of PPL in the outer/inner-middle lung bands and the right-upper/-lower lung lobes by rEBUS-D-TBLB were noninferior to those of rEBUS-GS-TBLB. The duration of the procedure of rEBUS-D-TBLB was longer than that of rEBUS-GS-TBLB. There were 14 cases of hemorrhage >50 mL, 1 case of postoperative chest pain in the rEBUS-D-TBLB group, and 3 cases of hemorrhage >50 mL in the rEBUS-GS-TBLB group.
conclusionREBUS-D-TBLB by thin bronchoscope has a high diagnostic value for PPL with a diameter ≥3 cm, which may be considered a useful alternative for rEBUS-GS-TBLB in the clinic.
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.