SynthesisCurrent medical imaging2025
Diagnostic Efficacy of PET/CT-Aided versus Conventional CT-guided Lung Biopsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Synthesis in Current medical imaging, 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
introductionUnlike its well-established role in lung cancer staging, positron emission tomography /computed tomography (PET/CT)'s role in guiding lung biopsies remains unclear and underutilized, despite its potential to distinguish metabolically active regions from areas of necrosis or fibrosis within lesions.
objectiveThis study aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of PET/CT-aided versus conventional CT-guided lung biopsy by comparing the incidences of non-diagnostic results, false results, and complications.
methodsStudies comparing PET/CT-aided and conventional CT-guided lung biopsy were identified through an intensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. Data on nondiagnostic results, false results, and complications were extracted. Risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model.
resultsSeven studies involving 1,661 procedures were included. PET/CT-aided lung biopsy significantly reduced nondiagnostic results compared to conventional CT-guided biopsy (2.8% vs. 9.1%; pooled RR: 0.38, 95% CI: 0.20–0.70, P = 0.002). False results were also significantly fewer in the PET/CT-aided group (6.5% vs. 17.0%; pooled RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.35–0.65, P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in overall complication rates (28.1% vs. 32.5%; pooled RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.77–1.10, P = 0.352), while PET/CT-aided biopsy showed a slight tendency toward fewer major complications (0.9% vs. 1.7%; pooled RR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.30–1.44, P = 0.303).
conclusionPET/CT-aided CT-guided lung biopsy offers advantages over conventional CT-guided lung biopsy by significantly reducing nondiagnostic and false results, without significant differences in the risk of complications.
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.