ArticleBMC pulmonary medicine2025
Is endobronchial ultrasound cost-effective for beginner? A single-center learning curve analysis.
Article in BMC pulmonary medicine, 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.
- Di̇agnosti̇c yi̇eld of EBUS i̇n medi̇asti̇nal stagi̇ng of extrapulmonary mali̇gnanci̇es; si̇ngle center cli̇ni̇cal experi̇ence.BMC pulmonary medicine · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) has emerged as a widely used minimally invasive method for mediastinal and hilar lymph node sampling. However, in newly established centers, its economic sustainability is questioned due to the learning curve, equipment costs, and procedural requirements. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance, procedure duration, and cost-effectiveness of EBUS compared to conventional methods in a beginner center.
methodsThis retrospective study included 200 patients treated between January 2022 and January 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: 100 underwent EBUS and 100 underwent conventional procedures (mediastinoscopy, VATS, thoracotomy). Demographic data, diagnosis rates, procedure times, number of sampled nodes, hospitalization duration, and overall costs were compared. Learning curve assessment was based on changes in procedure time and diagnostic accuracy. Statistical analyses were performed.
resultsThere were no significant differences in age or sex between the EBUS and conventional groups. Primary malignancy rate was significantly lower in the EBUS group (49% vs 74%, p = 0.001). EBUS was associated with significantly shorter procedure duration (20.8 min vs 47.9 min, p = 0.001), hospital stay (2.0 days vs 2.98 days, p = 0.001), and procedure cost ($222 vs $467, p = 0.001). The learning curve showed a significant breakpoint at the 40th case, with improvements in diagnostic accuracy and reductions in duration. However, in the first 40 EBUS cases, higher rates of inadequate biopsies, increased need for additional surgical interventions, and two major device failures significantly elevated the average cost to $829 in this subgroup. When device repair and additional surgery costs were included, the mean total cost per patient was similar between the EBUS and conventional groups ($477 vs $467).
conclusionAlthough EBUS may initially seem more costly in newly established centers, the learning curve improves efficiency and diagnostic yield over time, ultimately leading to cost-effectiveness. Considering its minimally invasive nature, outpatient feasibility, and lower complication rates, EBUS should be encouraged in clinical practice, even during the early adoption phase.
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.