ArticleDiagnostic pathology2024
Clinical values of different specimen preparation methods for the diagnosis of lung cancer by EBUS-TBNA.
Article in Diagnostic pathology, 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.
- 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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveEBUS-TBNA has emerged as an important minimally invasive procedure for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of different specimen preparation from aspirates on the diagnosis of lung cancer.
methods181 consecutive patients with known or suspected lung cancer accompanied by hilar / mediastinal lymphadenopathy underwent EBUS-TBNA from January 2019 to December 2022. Specimens obtained by EBUS-TBNA were processed by three methods: Traditional smear cytology of aspirates (TSC), liquid-based cytology of aspirates (LBC) and histopathology of core biopsies.
resultsEBUS-TBNA was performed in 181 patients on 213 lymph nodes, the total positive rate of the combination of three specimen preparation methods was 80.7%. The diagnostic positive rate of histopathology was 72.3%, TSC was 68.1%, and LBC was 65.3%, no significant differences was observed (p = 0.29); however, statistically significant difference was noted between the combination of three preparation methods and any single specimen preparation methods (p = 0.002). The diagnostic sensitivity of histopathology combined with TSC and histopathology combined with LBC were 96.5 and 94.8%, the specificity was 95.0% and 97.5%, the PPV was 98.8% and 99.4%, the NPV was 86.4% and 81.2%, the diagnostic accuracy was 96.2% and 95.3%, respectively; The sensitivity and accuracy of above methods were higher than that of single specimen preparation, but lower than that of combination of three preparation methods.
conclusionWhen EBUS-TBNA is used for the diagnosis and staging of lung cancer, histopathology combined with TSC can achieve enough diagnostic efficiency and better cost-effectiveness.
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.