SynthesisJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2025
Outcomes of endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration in elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We aimed to compare the outcomes of endobronchial ultrasound-transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) between elderly and non-elderly patients utilizing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Repositories of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched up to 25 January 2025 for all comparative studies providing data on the adequacy of the sample obtained from the procedure, procedure duration, and complications. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. Six studies were eligible. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in procedure duration, inadequate sampling, and all complications between elderly and non-elderly groups. There was no statistically significant difference between elderly and non-elderly for specific complications like bleeding, cardiovascular events, and hypoxemia. Subgroup analysis based on the definition of elderly did not change the results of inadequate sampling and all complications. Descriptive analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of EBUS-TBNA for malignant lesions showed no difference between the two groups. EBUS-TBNA seems to have similar diagnostic yield and complication rates in the elderly as compared to the non-elderly population. More studies are needed to improve the quality of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40785000What 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.