ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2025
Effect of
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the effect of Methods: This was a comparative study. A total of 80 patients with suspected lung tumors admitted to Baoding NO.1 Central Hospital from May 2022 to December 2023 were selected as the research subjects and divided into the study group and the control group per different detection methods. Patients in the control group were treated with Results: No significant differences were observed in tissue length and scanning time between the two groups (P>0.05). The operation time and number of biopsies in the observation group were less than those in the control group, with significant differences (P<0.05). Meanwhile, there was no statistically significant difference in specificity (15.00% vs. 27.50%) and misdiagnosis rate (2.50% vs. 10.00%) between the two groups (P>0.05). Moreover, the incidence of complications in the observation group was 5.00%, lower than the control group (7.50%), with no statistically significant differences ( Conclusion: The observation group was found to have superior effect than control group, with fewer punctures and shorter puncture time, making it worthy of promotion in clinical application.
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.