ArticleFrontiers in medicine2024
Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration for diagnosing thoracic lesions: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Factors influencing the diagnostic accuracy of lung cancer using endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- The clinical utility of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration: A single-center experience from the Middle East.Annals of thoracic medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a minimally invasive technique for biopsy of lung, peri-pulmonary tissue and lymph nodes under real-time ultrasound-guided biopsy. It is used in the diagnosis and/or staging of benign and malignant pulmonary and non-pulmonary diseases. Our study is based on a large sample size, in a diversified population which provides a representative real-world cohort for analysis. Methods: Patients who underwent EBUS-TBNA procedure between September 2019 and August 2022 were included in this retrospective study. For cases diagnosed as benign and unclassified lesions by EBUS-TBNA, the final diagnosis was determined by further invasive surgery or a combination of therapy and clinical follow-up for at least 6 months. Results: A total of 618 patients were included in the study, including 182 females (29.4%) and 436 males (70.6%). The mean age of all patients was 61.9 ± 10.5 years. These patients were successfully punctured by EBUS-TBNA to obtain pathological results. The pathological diagnosis results of EBUS-TBNA were compared with the final clinical diagnosis results as follows: 133 cases (21.5%) of benign lesions and 485 cases (78.5%) of malignant lesions were finally diagnosed. Among them, the pathological diagnosis was obtained by EBUS-TBNA in 546 patients (88.3%) (464 malignant lesions and 82 benign conditions), while EBUS-TBNA was unable to define diagnosis in 72 patients (11.6%). 20/72 non-diagnostic EBUS-TBNA were true negative. The overall diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of EBUS-TBNA were 91.3%, 100%, 100%, 27.8%, and 91.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 89.1-93.6%], respectively. In this study, only one case had active bleeding without serious complications during the EBUS-TBNA procedure. Conclusion: Given its low invasiveness, high diagnostic accuracy, and safety, EBUS-TBNA is worth promoting in thoracic lesions.
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.