ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2024
Does the guide sheath outperform the non-guide sheath method in endobronchial ultrasound-guided biopsy of peripheral pulmonary lesions?-a meta-analysis.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided transbronchial biopsy with or without a guide sheath (EBUS-GS or EBUS-nGS) is commonly utilized for the diagnosis of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). The primary objective of this meta-analysis is to assess the diagnostic yield, surgical time, and safety of EBUS-GS and EBUS-nGS in patients presenting with PPLs, providing valuable insights for clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) up to January 2024. Two researchers independently screened the retrieved articles, extracted the data, assessed the quality of the studies, and conducted statistical analysis through Review Manager 5.4 and STATA 14.0. Subgroup analysis was used to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed through funnel plot tests. Sensitivity analyses were also performed to evaluate the robustness of the combined results. Results: The meta-analysis included data from nine studies comprising 2,898 patients. No publication bias was detected. There was no difference in the overall diagnostic rate of EBUS-GS and EBUS-nGS for PPLs [odds ratio (OR): 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-1.08, Z-score (Z) =1.37, P=0.17]. Conversely, in cases utilizing a bronchoscope with an outer diameter of 3.0 mm (OR: 0.58, 95% CI: 0.40-0.84, Z=2.86, P=0.004), a 1.7-mm bronchoscope channel (OR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.51-0.96, Z=2.21, P=0.03), or lesions ≤30 mm in size, or lesions situated in the lower lobe of the lung (OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.38-0.91, Z=2.36, P=0.02), the diagnostic rate was higher in the EBUS-nGS group. However, the EBUS-GS group demonstrated a tremendous advantage in terms of safety (OR: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.44-0.93, Z=2.33, P=0.02). Conclusions: EBUS-GS and EBUS-nGS showed no significant difference in the overall diagnostic rate for PPLs. When using a bronchoscope with an outer diameter of 3.0 mm or a channel diameter of 1.7 mm, or when lesions are ≤30 mm or located in the lower lobe of the lung, EBUS-nGS demonstrated a higher diagnostic rate, and EBUS-nGS demonstrated a higher diagnostic rate. However, EBUS-GS exhibited more tremendous advantages in terms of safety.
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.