ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
PET/CT-aided biopsy of lung lesions enhances diagnostic efficacy, especially for lesions >3cm.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diagnostic Efficacy of PET/CT-Aided versus Conventional CT-guided Lung Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisCurrent medical imaging · 2025Pooled it
- Thoracic ultrasonography-guided biopsy: Radiological and radiometabolic factors affecting diagnostic success.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- Advances in the application of different imaging techniques in percutaneous lung biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The Diagnostic Approach to Pulmonary Complications in Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation: To Biopsy or Not?Transplant infectious disease : an official journal of the Transplantation SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT-aided CT-guided and routine CT-guided transthoracic needle biopsy for lung lesions. Methods: A total of 458 patients with suspicious lung lesions were referred for CT-guided biopsy, with 227 patients assigned to the PET/CT group and 231 patients assigned to the CT group. The clinical characteristics and diagnostic yield were compared between the two groups. Furthermore, conducting subgroup analysis to evaluate the differences of diagnostic success or failure between the two groups. Results: The sensitivity and diagnostic accuracy rate differed significantly (P = 0.035, P = 0.048). In the PET/CT group, the values were 95.7% and 96.3%, respectively, while in the CT group, they were 90.1% and 91.9%. When considering non-diagnostic cases, the overall diagnostic success rate increased markedly in PET/CT group (93.0% vs. 83.1%, P = 0.001). In our subgroup analysis, the PET/CT group demonstrated superiority in detecting lesions larger than 3 cm (OR, 4.81; 95CI%, 2.03 - 11.36), while showing a moderate effect in lesions smaller than 3 cm (OR, 1.09; 95CI%, 0.42 - 2.81). Significant effect modification was observed in large lesions in the PET/CT group (P for interaction = 0.023). Conclusions:
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.