ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2024
Comparison Between Endobronchial-Guided Transbronchial Biopsy and Computed Tomography-Guided Transthoracic Lung Biopsy for the Diagnosis of Central Pulmonary Lesions.
Article in The clinical respiratory journal, 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.
- Association and Predictive Ability between Inflammatory Burden Index and Fever Following Endobronchial Forceps Biopsy in Lung Cancer Patients.Journal of inflammation research · 2025Article
- Robotic-assisted bronchoscopic localization for small pulmonary nodules: a novel approach to minimally invasive surgery.Frontiers in surgery · 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
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is one of the most common malignant tumors at present. This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy, complication rates, and predictive values of computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) and electronic bronchoscopy-guided transbronchial lung biopsy (TBLB) for patients with central pulmonary lesions (CPLs) with a diameter ≥ 3 cm.
methodsWe retrospectively included 110 patients with CPLs with a diameter ≥ 3 cm who underwent preoperative PTNB and TBLB examinations and ultimately underwent surgery to remove CPLs and obtained pathological results. Detailed information was collected in order to compare whether there was a difference between two groups. Data were processed using SPSS software (Version 26.0; IBM Corp). Data were compared by t-test or chi-square test. p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsAll patients underwent surgical treatment at the department of thoracic surgery and obtained a final pathological diagnosis. The rate of positive predictive value (PPV) was comparable between the two methods, and the negative predictive value (NPV) was significantly higher in the PTNB group compared with the TBLB group (p < 0.05). In addition, PTNB was more sensitive and accurate than TBLB (p < 0.05). However, the PTNB group had a higher probability of complications, and TBLB was a relatively safer examination method.
conclusionPTNB demonstrated a higher accuracy and sensitivity than TBLB in the treatment of CPLs with a diameter ≥ 3 cm, but the complication rates of PTNB are relatively high. These methods exhibited different diagnostic accuracies and therefore should be selected based on different medical conditions.
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.