ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Single-use flexible bronchoscope evaluation for bronchoalveolar lavage.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Single-Use Flexible Bronchoscopy: Advances in Technology and Applications.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Successful Bronchial Occlusion With an Endobronchial Watanabe Spigot Using a Single-Use Bronchoscope for Bronchobiliary Fistula: A Case Report.Respirology case reports · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Since their initial release in 2009, single-use flexible bronchoscopes (SUFBs) have significantly evolved from simple tools largely used for airway inspection with limited functionality to highly advanced instruments with the same capabilities as reusable flexible bronchoscopes (RFBs). Despite this, scrutiny still exists. The purpose of this study was to better understand the performance and preference of six industry leading SUFBs. Methods: Thirty-one physicians who regularly use bronchoscopes performed two simulated bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) on low fidelity lung models with six SUFBs: Ambu aScope 4 and 5 (with integrated sampler system), Boston Scientific Exalt Model B, Olympus H-SteriScope, and Verathon B-Flex and B-Flex 2 (all with a Lukens trap). After completing BALs with each scope, physicians answered an 18-question survey with a five-point rating system where 1 indicated unacceptable, 3 indicated satisfactory, and 5 indicated excellent. Results: The Ambu aScope 5 Broncho HD rated highest in each of the 18 evaluated categories with an overall average performance score of 4.47 and sampling score of 4.40. A two-sample Conclusions: All six SUFBs included in the study scored above "satisfactory" in both the performance and sampling metrics measured. Of the six, the aScope 5 Broncho HD with an integrated sampling system had the highest average rating for both performance and sampling metrics, followed by the Exalt Model B for performance and the aScope 4 Broncho for sampling. As the annual volume of procedures continues to increase, SUFBs that combine safety, superb performance, and convenience will help further evolve bronchoscopy.
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.