Trial reportBalkan medical journal2025
Ultrasound-Guided Pleural Needle Biopsy Which Needle for Which Patient: A Prospective Randomized Study.
Trial report in Balkan medical journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Non-invasive prediction of non-tuberculous benign pleural effusion: can we avoid unnecessary pleural biopsies?BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Given the growing incidence of pleural effusions and the limited availability of medical thoracoscopy (MT) in clinical practice, ultrasound (US)-guided pleural needle biopsies using Abrams or cutting needles are increasingly being used for the histopathological diagnosis of pleural diseases. Aims: To assessed the diagnostic yield and safety of US-guided Abrams and cutting needles to determine the optimal needle type for specific clinical situations. Study Design: Prospective randomized study. Methods: The study included 174 patients with undiagnosed pleural effusion requiring histopathological evaluation. Patients were randomized into two arms: those who underwent US-guided cutting needle biopsy (US-CNPB) and those who underwent US-guided Abrams needle biopsy (US-ANPB). Results: The US-CNPB group exhibited a false-negative rate of 36.9% and diagnostic accuracy of 63.0%. compared to 21.3% and 78.7% in the US-ANPB group, with significant differences between the groups ( Conclusion: US-CNPB should be preferred in patients with pleural thickness ≥ 1 cm on US. MT is recommended for patients with pleural thickening < 1 cm or those presenting with pleural effusion without pleural thickening. However, in the absence of MT, US-ANPB is the preferred alternative because of its superior diagnostic accuracy and procedural safety.
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.