Trial reportDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2025
Comparison of the novel simultaneous biplane versus in-plane imaging technique in ultrasound-guided biopsy: a prospective randomized multi-operator cross-over phantom study.
Trial report in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate and compare the in-plane and novel biplane imaging techniques in ultrasound-guided biopsies (USBx). USBx are effective for obtaining tissue samples in suspected malignancy or infection. The in-plane technique is the gold standard, offering continuous needle visualization. The biplane technique enables simultaneous in-plane and out-of-plane visualization, potentially improving biopsy outcomes. A study was conducted using gel phantoms to simulate USBx, with the goal of determining whether one technique offers distinct advantages over the other.
methodsA total of 30 participants (mean age: 30 ± 7 years; 20 men) were recruited, primarily consisting of physicians in training with varying levels of experience. Each participant performed biopsies on gel phantoms using both the in-plane and biplane techniques in a randomized order after watching a standardized tutorial video. Procedure-related parameters were analyzed, and post-intervention questionnaires, including the NASA task load index (NASA-TLX), were collected to assess cognitive workload and personal preferences.
resultsAll participants achieved successful biopsies with both techniques. The first-puncture success rate was significantly higher with the biplane technique (83% vs. 63%;
conclusionIn this study, the biplane technique in USBx was substantially superior in terms of total biopsy attempts and first-puncture success rate compared with the in-plane approach. It may offer safety and efficiency advantages, particularly for less-experienced operators. Further studies with larger sample sizes and experienced operators, especially in clinical settings, are needed to determine clear superiority. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: These findings suggest that biplane imaging may be especially beneficial for training less-experienced operators and in cases with elevated complication risk.
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.