SynthesisJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2024
A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-dose versus standard-dose computed tomography-guided lung biopsy.
Synthesis in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cutting doses, keeping diagnoses: outcomes of protocol optimization for CT-guided lung biopsies.La Radiologia medica · 2026Article
- Comparison of low- and standard-dose CT-guided transthoracic core needle biopsies: Feasibility, safety, diagnostic yield, and radiation dose.Acta radiologica open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the existence of several Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) investigating Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) as a guide in lung biopsies, conclusive findings remain elusive. To address this contention, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of LDCT-guided lung biopsies.
methodsA comprehensive search across major databases identified RCTs comparing the effectiveness of LDCT-guided with Standard-Dose Computed Tomography (SDCT)-guided lung biopsies. Subsequently, we utilized a random-effects model meta-analysis to assess diagnostic accuracy, radiation dose, operation duration, and clinical complications associated with these procedures.
resultsOut of 292 scrutinized studies, six RCTs representing 922 patients were included in the final analysis. Results indicated the differences between the LDCT and SDCT groups were not different with statistical significance in terms of diagnostic accuracy rates (Intent-to-Treat (ITT) populations: Relative Risk (RR) 1.01, 95% Confidence interval [CI] 0.97-1.06, p = 0.61; Per-Protocol (PP) populations: RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98-1.04, p = 0.46), incidence of pneumothorax (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75-1.35, p = 0.98), incidence of hemoptysis (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.63-1.43, p = 0.80), and operation duration (minutes) (Mean Differences [MD] -0.34, 95% CI -1.67-0.99, p = 0.61). Notably, LDCT group demonstrated a lower radiation dose (mGy·cm) with statistical significance (MD -188.62, 95% CI -273.90 to -103.34, p < 0.0001).
conclusionsThe use of LDCT in lung biopsy procedures demonstrated equivalent efficacy and safety to standard methods while notably reducing patient radiation exposure.
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.