ArticleCureus2023
The Role and Associated Factors of Liquid-Based Cytology of Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in Lung Cancer Diagnosis: A Prospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative infection risk factors in lung cancer patients after bronchoalveolar lavage.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Flexible Bronchoscopy and Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer Staging: A Narrative Review of Modern Techniques for Optimized Clinical Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Innovative diagnostic approaches for lung cancer: integrating traditional cytology with qPCR for rapid and reliable results.Scientific reports · 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
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Liquid-based cytology (LBC) has shown advantages over conventional smears (CS), but previous applications in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid have produced inconsistent results. This study compared LBC and CS for diagnosing lung cancer using BAL fluid. Methodology A prospective study was conducted on 92 patients suspected of having lung cancer. All patients underwent bronchoscopy and had a final diagnosis confirmed by histopathology of lesions tissue through biopsy. The study aimed to assess the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of the two cytological methods, in a pair-wise fashion. In addition, the study evaluated the correlation of factors, such as the volume of fluid used in LBC and bronchoscopy lesion morphology, with the sensitivity of LBC. Results The study involved 78 participants who were diagnosed with lung cancer. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of LBC were 25.7%, 100%, 100%, and 19.4%, respectively, whereas those of CS were 15.4%, 85.7%, 85.7%, and 15.4%, respectively. Although the sensitivity of LBC was higher than that of CS, the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.096, McNemar test). Furthermore, the median fluid volume performed during LBC in patients with positive results was significantly higher than in those with negative results (p=0.001, Mann-Whitney U test). Conclusions The application of LBC to BAL fluid has demonstrated similar and potentially superior diagnostic accuracy compared to CS in detecting lung cancer. It is recommended that further investigation be undertaken to examine the relationship between the volume of fluid utilized during the LBC process and its diagnostic accuracy to enhance its sensitivity.
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.