ArticleTherapeutic advances in respiratory disease
Comparative diagnostic performance and safety of radial endobronchial ultrasound versus its combination with electromagnetic or virtual bronchoscopic navigation for peripheral pulmonary lesions: a retrospective study.
Article in Therapeutic advances in respiratory disease. 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.
- Minimally Invasive Sampling Techniques for Pancreatic and Pulmonary Nodules: A Review of the Evolution of Guidance and Sampling Methods.Diagnostic cytopathology · 2026Review
- Simultaneous Use of Dual Bronchoscopes for Targeted Biopsy of Peripheral Lung Lesions: The Kissing Probe Technique.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadial endobronchial ultrasound (R-EBUS), virtual bronchoscopic navigation (VBN), and electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) are widely used bronchoscopic techniques for diagnosing peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs). However, the applications of their combinations remain unclear.
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance and safety of R-EBUS versus its combination with ENB or VBN and lesion characteristics.
designThis study is a retrospective, single-center cohort study.
methodsPatients who underwent R-EBUS without and with ENB or VBN (R-EBUS+ENB, R-EBUS+VBN) for peripheral pulmonary. Diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and complications were compared using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) for baseline difference adjustment.
resultsR-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups had diagnostic yields of 74.6%, 78.2%, and 73.0%, respectively (no significant differences after IPTW adjustment). Multimodal approaches significantly improved diagnostic yield in patients with emphysematous lungs (R-EBUS vs R-EBUS+ENB: odds ratio (OR): 3.51; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-8.95;
conclusionComparable diagnostic performances were observed among R-EBUS, R-EBUS+ENB, and R-EBUS+VBN groups. Multimodal approaches significantly enhanced diagnostic accuracy in subtypes with lesions of small size, positive bronchial signs, or emphysematous lungs. These findings highlight the importance of tailored multimodal strategies to improve diagnostic yield and procedural safety in PPL evaluation.
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.