ReviewChinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine2023
Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions.
Review in Chinese medical journal pulmonary and critical care medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mitigating lateral sensing blind spots: A dual-segment bronchoscopic robot with a bioinspired skin.Science advances · 2026Article
- Predicting Diagnostic Success and Procedural Efficiency in Robotic Bronchoscopy Using Machine Learning.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Multimodal innovations and clinical applications of Robotic-assisted bronchoscopy in pulmonary nodule diagnosis: a review of recent advances.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2025Review
- Chinese expert consensus on shape-sensing robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (ssRAB) in the management of peripheral pulmonary lesions.Translational lung cancer research · 2025Review
- Unlocking the depths: the evolution of robotic-assisted bronchoscopy.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Chinese expert consensus on cone-beam CT-guided diagnosis, localization and treatment for pulmonary nodules.Thoracic cancer · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
More peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) are detected by low-dose helical computed tomography (CT) either incidentally or via dedicated lung cancer screening programs. Thus, using methods for safe and accurate diagnosis of these lesions has become increasingly important. Transthoracic needle aspiration (TTNA) and transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) are routinely performed during the diagnostic workup for PPLs. However, TTNA often carries the risk of pneumothorax, uncontrollable airway hemorrhage, and does not allow mediastinal staging in one procedure. In contrast, traditional TBLB often has a poorer diagnostic yield despite fewer complications. With the ongoing development of technology applied to bronchoscopy, guided bronchoscopy has become widely used and the diagnostic yield of TBLB has improved. Additionally, guided bronchoscopy continues to demonstrate a better safety profile than TTNA. In recent years, robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) has been introduced and implemented in the diagnosis of PPLs. At present, RAB has two platforms that are commercially available: Monarch™ and Ion™; several other platforms are under development. Both systems differ in characteristics, advantages, and limitations and offer features not seen in previous guided bronchoscopy. Several studies, including cadaveric model studies and clinical trials, have been conducted to examine the feasibility and performance of RAB using these two systems; large multicenter studies are underway. In this review, published experimental results, focusing on diagnostic yield and complications of RAB, are analyzed and the potential clinical application of RAB is discussed, which will enable the operators to have a clear overview of RAB.
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.