ArticleQuantitative imaging in medicine and surgery2024
Clinical application of intravascular forceps biopsy in the diagnosis of vascular obstructive diseases: a pilot study.
Article in Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision Neuro-Oncology in Glioblastoma: AI-Guided CRISPR Editing and Real-Time Multi-Omics for Genomic Brain Surgery.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The sampling of vascular obstruction diseases remains a challenge in clinical practice. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accuracy, and safety of intravascular forceps biopsy (IVFB) for the diagnosis of vascular obstructive diseases. Methods: From January 2015 to January 2022, of the total of 35 patients who underwent IVFB (21 male, 14 female; mean age 60±11 years; range, 39-81 years), 32 (91.4%) did so during interventional planned revascularization procedures and 3 (8.6%) did so due so due to inaccessible or failed percutaneous access. The outcomes of technical success, biopsy times, patient radiation dose (PRD), complications, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy rate (AR) were analyzed. Results: The technical success of IVFB was 100%. The median number of biopsies taken per biopsy session and PRD were 4.0 (range, 3-6) and 712.6 mGy (range, 383.4-1,450.8), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and AR of IVFB were 87.5% (21/24), 100% (11/11), 100% (21/21), 78.6% (11/14), and 91.4% (32/35), respectively. There were no complications related to IVFB. Conclusions: IVFB is a technically feasible and safe technique with good diagnostic value. The procedure should be considered in patients who are not suitable for percutaneous access, show indistinct imaging characteristics, or are scheduled to undergo revascularization procedure.
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.