Trial reportUpdates in surgery2025
Comparative study of cryorecanalisation and cryoablation using flexible bronchoscopy for the treatment of endobronchial tuberculosis.
Trial report in Updates in surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of cryorecanalisation and cryoablation using flexible bronchoscopy for the treatment of tumor-like endobronchial tuberculosis (EBTB). Patients with tumor-like EBTB (104) were randomly divided into a cryorecanalisation (54 patients) or cryoablation (50 patients) group to assess the differences in efficacy and complications between the treatments. The cryorecanalisation and cryoablation treatments' therapeutic efficacies were 81.5% and 48.0%, respectively (p = 0.000); in patients with less than moderate obstruction (≤ 50%), the therapeutic efficacies were 92.9% and 88.9%, respectively (p = 1.000). In patients with more than moderate obstruction (> 50%), cryorecanalisation and cryoablation's therapeutic efficacies were 77.5% and 25.0%, respectively (p = 0.000). The number of treatments in the cryorecanalisation and cryoablation groups were 2.46 ± 1.06 and 3.26 ± 0.75, respectively (p = 0.000). The main complication of the treatment protocol in both groups was bleeding, and the overall bleeding rate was 96.2% and 16.0% in the cryorecanalisation and cryoablation groups, respectively (p = 0.000). Cryorecanalisation via flexible bronchoscopy improved the outcome of patients with tumor-like EBTB and reduced the number of treatments required compared with cryoablation; however, it had a higher bleeding rate and the potential risk of severe bleeding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39671075What 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.