SynthesisSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2023
Minimally invasive interventions for biopsy of malignancy-suspected pulmonary nodules: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Esketamine vs. sufentanil for anesthesia induction in elderly patients undergoing transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB): effect on hemodynamic stability, airway reactivity, and oxygenation.BMC anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Construction and validation of a prediction model for malignant pulmonary nodules based on imaging, demographic, and laboratory features.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the efficacy of different lung biopsy modalities in solitary pulmonary nodules.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Complications during chest tube drainage for iatrogenic pneumothorax.European clinical respiratory journal · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImaging tests are important for diagnosis during the management of pulmonary nodules; however, biopsy is required to confirm the malignancy.
objectivesTo compare the effects of different techniques used for the biopsy of a pulmonary nodule. DESIGN AND
settingSystematic review and meta-analysis were conducted using Cochrane methodology in São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on minimally invasive techniques, including tomography-guided percutaneous biopsy (PERCUT), transbronchial biopsies with fluoroscopy (FLUOR), endobronchial ultrasound (EBUSR), and electromagnetic navigation (NAVIG). The primary outcomes were diagnostic yield, major adverse events, and need for another approach.
resultsSeven RCTs were included (913 participants; 39.2% female, mean age: 59.28 years). Little to no increase was observed in PERCUT over FLUOR (P = 0.84), PERCUT over EBUSR (P = 0.32), and EBUSR over NAVIG (P = 0.17), whereas a slight increase was observed in NAVIG over FLUOR (P = 0.17); however, the evidence was uncertain. EBUSR may increase the diagnostic yield over FLUOR (P = 0.34). PERCUT showed little to no increase in all bronchoscopic techniques, with uncertain evidence (P = 0.02).
conclusionNo biopsy method is definitively superior to others. The preferred approach must consider availability, accessibility, and cost, as safety and diagnostic yield do not differ. Further RCTs planned, conducted, and reported with methodological rigor and transparency are needed, and additional studies should assess cost and the correlation between nodule size and location, as well as their association with biopsy results. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO database, CRD42018092367 -https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=92367.
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.