SynthesisBMC medical imaging2025
Efficacy of CEUS-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Topologically distinct intratumoral heterogeneity scores for predicting high-risk pathological grades in invasive lung adenocarcinoma: A multicenter study across four institutions.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Article
- Ultrasound-guided biopsy for thoracic lesions: diagnostic performance, safety, and potential role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2026Article
- The Role of CEUS in the Diagnosis and Follow-Up of Pleuropulmonary Diseases and Interventional Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Thoracic ultrasonography-guided biopsy: Radiological and radiometabolic factors affecting diagnostic success.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2026Article
- Advances in the application of different imaging techniques in percutaneous lung biopsy.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Impacting factors of diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous core needle biopsy in mediastinal lesions: an analysis with 622 cases.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThis study compares the success rate, diagnostic accuracy, and safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-guided biopsy versus conventional ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy for thoracic and pulmonary lesions.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was conducted. The primary outcomes included success rate and diagnostic accuracy, and the secondary outcome was the odds ratio of adverse effects. A random-effects meta-analysis pooled the data, with heterogeneity assessed by I² and publication bias evaluated using Egger's test and funnel plot analysis. Sensitivity analysis was performed to confirm result robustness. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were conducted to explore the sources of heterogeneity.
resultsSixteen studies with 3,459 patients were included. CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrated higher success rate (99.18%, 95% CI: 98.00-99.90%) and diagnostic accuracy (95.96%, 95% CI: 94.84-96.96%) than US-guided biopsy (success rate: 97.26%, 95% CI: 95.45-98.68%; diagnostic accuracy: 85.87%, 95% CI: 82.05-89.31%). Complications were more frequent in the US-guided group, with an odds ratio of 1.65 (95% CI: 1.15-2.37). Heterogeneity was low, and publication bias was minimal, except for diagnostic accuracy in the US group. Sensitivity analysis confirmed result robustness.
conclusionCompared with conventional ultrasound, CEUS-guided biopsy demonstrates a comparable success rate, superior diagnostic accuracy, and a lower incidence of complications, underscoring its clinical value as a preferred approach for thoracic and pulmonary lesion assessment. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This study was registered with PROSPERO under the registration number CRD42024608627. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.