Trial reportBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Comparison of three different puncture techniques for endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration: a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC pulmonary medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05628454 (Comparison of Three Different Puncture Techniques in EBUS-TBNA), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Three Different Puncture Techniques in EBUS-TBNA
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasound (EBUS)-guided sampling techniques for mediastinal and hilar lymphadenopathy vary, yet their comparative diagnostic performance remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of three EBUS-guided puncture methods-slow-pull capillary sampling, traditional negative-pressure aspiration, and non-negative-pressure capillary sampling-in patients with mediastinal and/or hilar lymph node enlargement.
methodsThis single-center, prospective, randomized controlled trial employed computer-generated block randomization (1:1:1 allocation ratio) to assign eligible participants meeting predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria to one of three EBUS-guided sampling techniques. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy. The secondary outcomes included blood contamination of the samples, bleeding during the operation, and histological core tissue acquisition.
resultsSeventy-one patients were analyzed. Baseline characteristics, lymph node dimensions (long-axis and short-axis), and diagnostic accuracy (> 80% across all groups) showed no statistically significant intergroup differences (all p > 0.05). Similarly, secondary outcomes-blood contamination of samples, bleeding during surgery, and histological core tissue acquisition-demonstrated no significant differences among the groups (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsAll three EBUS-guided puncture techniques exhibited high diagnostic accuracy and low bleeding risk, with no statistically significant differences observed. These findings suggest that technique selection may depend on operator preference or the clinical context rather than superiority in diagnostic performance. REGISTRATION: NCT05628454 at ClinicalTrials.gov.Retrospectively registered on 28 November 2022.
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.