Trial reportWorld journal of surgical oncology2024
Noninferiority comparison of electromagnetic navigation-guided versus computed tomography-guided percutaneous localization of multiple small pulmonary nodules: a prospective randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in World journal of surgical oncology, 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.
- Preoperative and intraoperative localization of small pulmonary nodules for thoracoscopic surgery: a contemporary narrative review.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Review
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
Abstract
backgroundAccurate preoperative localization is a challenge in thoracoscopic surgery for multiple pulmonary nodules. In this study, we aimed to assess the accuracy and feasibility of electromagnetic navigation (EN)-guided percutaneous localization.
methodsWe enrolled 50 patients with multiple pulmonary nodules for EN-guided (EN group) or CT-guided (CT group) localization. The primary outcome was the localization accuracy, and the primary analysis was to assess the noninferiority (noninferiority margin of 5 mm) of EN-induced localization deviation compared with that of CT-induced deviation. The secondary outcomes included the procedural duration, anxiety score, and incidence of complications.
resultsAmong the 50 patients randomized to the EN- and CT-guided groups, 24 patients (53 nodules) underwent EN-guided preoperative marking, and 25 patients (54 nodules) underwent CT-guided preoperative marking. The demographic, clinical, and radiological characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups (P > 0.05). Among these patients, the EN group was noninferior in terms of localization deviation compared with the CT group (9.0 [6.5] vs. 7.5 [6.0] mm; P = 0.33; absolute difference 0.9 [95% CI] 0.03-1.77]). Furthermore, the procedural duration was 16.3 (4.2) minutes for the EN group and 22.3 (8.2) minutes for the CT group (P = 0.002). Additionally, the EN group exhibited significant improvements compared with the CT group on the basis of the Amsterdam Preoperative Anxiety and Information Scale, particularly in relation to the S and C subscales' cumulative scores.
conclusionsEN was found to be noninferior to CT in terms of localization accuracy, as it significantly decreased the procedural duration and relieved psychological stress for patients who underwent simultaneous surgery for multiple pulmonary nodules. CLINICAL
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2200056734.
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.