ArticleEuropean clinical respiratory journal2025
Value of bronchoscopy after computed tomography in the diagnostic work-up of haemoptysis.
Article in European clinical respiratory journal, 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.
- The characteristics of upper lobe-origin hemoptysis: analysis based on 31 patients.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
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
Introduction: Haemoptysis, a common symptom with a variety of aetiologies, requires a comprehensive diagnostic approach. Computed tomography of the thorax (CT) and bronchoscopy are crucial in this process. This study assesses the value of bronchoscopy in patients with haemoptysis and CT with no findings suspicious of malignancy. Methods and materials: This study retrospectively assessed patients with haemoptysis referred between January 2019 and December 2022 to the Department of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital. All patients who underwent CT and subsequently bronchoscopy due to haemoptysis were included in the study. Patients were excluded if CT or bronchoscopy was not performed, as well as patients suspected of malignancy on CT. Data, including patient characteristics, medical history, haemoptysis progression, CT, bronchoscopy results, and clinical assessments, were collected with a six-month follow-up. Results: A total of 469 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 306 were excluded, resulting in 163 eligible patients. There were 95 males (58.28%), and the mean age was 57.8 years (SD 14.48). Mild haemoptysis (92.02%) and longer than one week (63.80%) was the most common presentation. CT revealed abnormal findings in 77 (47.24%) patients and for 117 (71.78%) patients followed a bronchoscopy with no abnormal observations. No malignant findings were detected by bronchoscopy. Conclusion: The findings of this study revealed that bronchoscopy did not identify malignant aetiology beyond the scope of CT. These findings combined with current evidence suggest minimal benefit of bronchoscopy subsequent to CT in the diagnostic evaluation of thoracic malignancy in these patients. Take Home Message The diagnostic approach for patients with haemoptysis typically includes computed tomography (CT) and bronchoscopy to exclude pulmonary malignancy. This study supports current evidence of minimal value of bronchoscopy subsequent to CT in the diagnostic evaluation of thoracic malignancy in these patients.
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.