ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2025
Narrative review of diagnostic yield of navigational bronchoscopy for pulmonary nodules-a call for standardization.
Review 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 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.
- Predictors of Diagnostic Yield in Shape-Sensing Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy (ssRAB): A Retrospective Single-Center Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) being increasingly identified through screening programs. Navigational bronchoscopy, including electromagnetic and robotic-assisted bronchoscopy, is pivotal for biopsying these lesions. However, inconsistent definitions of diagnostic yield (DY) across studies hinder accurate assessment of bronchoscopy performance. This narrative review aims to clarify current DY definitions and advocate for a standardized approach. Methods: A narrative review of articles from January 2019 to July 2024 was conducted using PubMed, focusing on DY and its calculation in bronchoscopic procedures. Key Content and Findings: This review highlights significant inconsistencies in DY definitions, with some studies including follow-up assessments and nonspecific benign (NSB) findings, while others only consider immediate specific benign (SB) and malignant results. These discrepancies result in wide-ranging reported DY values, from 26.7% to 97%. Additionally, the review underscores the importance of distinguishing between DY and diagnostic accuracy (DA), as they assess different aspects of procedural performance and should not be used interchangeably. Simulation studies also demonstrate that cancer prevalence and methodological differences in DY calculation substantially affect study outcomes. Standardizing DY as a measure based solely on immediate SB and malignant findings-without follow-up-would allow faster study times and for easier comparison across different studies. Reporting disease prevalence within the study population is highly relevant as higher prevalence may inflate reported DY values. Conclusions: A standardized, strict definition of DY is crucial for accurately evaluating the diagnostic capacity of bronchoscopy. DY should not be confused with DA, as they measure distinct elements of performance. Adopting a strict definition of DY will enhance the comparability of study results, promote evidence-based decision-making, and help reduce unnecessary procedures while improving the reliability of diagnostic assessments in clinical practice.
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.