ArticleThe clinical respiratory journal2024
Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Different Guided Technologies Combined With Ultrathin Bronchoscopic Biopsy for Peripheral 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.
- Evaluation of the efficacy of different lung biopsy modalities in solitary pulmonary nodules.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Pathomics-based machine learning models for optimizing LungPro navigational bronchoscopy in peripheral lung lesion diagnosis: a retrospective study.Biomedical engineering online · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionVarious bronchoscopic guidance techniques have emerged to improve the diagnostic yield of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs), especially when combined with ultra-thin bronchoscopy. However, uncertainties exists in the convenience, accuracy rate, and complications of these techniques. We compared the feasibility, accuracy rate, and complication rates of transbronchial biopsy of PPLs sampled by the standard thin-layer CT navigation combined with ultrathin bronchoscopy (CTNUTB), the Lungpro virtual navigation combined with ultrathin bronchoscopy (VNUTB), and electromagnetic navigation combined with ultrathin bronchoscopy (ENUTB).
methodsRetrospectively identified were 256 patients sampled with transbronchial biopsy of PPLs. Eligible patients referred for CTNUTB, VNUTB, and ENUTB from January 2017 to December 2021 were included. We comprehensively compared the accuracy rate, feasibility, and complication rates for each method.
resultsThere was no significant difference in the accuracy rate of CTNUTB, VNUTB, and ENUTB (p = 0.293). The operation time via Lungpro navigation was the shortest (14.4 min, p < 0.001). The planning time via CT planning was the shortest (7.36 min, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the incidence of complications such as hemorrhage, pneumonia, and pneumothorax (p = 0.123). Besides, ENUTB costs more than $2000, while CTNUTB and VNUTB cost only about $130-230.
conclusionCTNUTB is still the main bronchoscopy method we recommended, which has low cost, simple operation, and safety no less than the others. In contrast, ENUTB provides a higher accuracy rate for small diameter nodules (less than 2 cm), which has a high use value and is worth promoting in the future.
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.