ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2025
Comparative diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound-guided, medical thoracoscopic, and blind pleural biopsy in tuberculous pleurisy.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pleural biopsy (PB) procedures to diagnose tuberculous pleurisy may be blind, ultrasound-guided, or medical thoracoscopic (BPB, USPB, and MTPB, respectively). However, the diagnostic efficacy of the three methods has not been comprehensively and systematically elaborated locally or abroad. This retrospective study compared the diagnostic efficacy and safety of BPB, USPB, and MTPB. Methods: A retrospective analysis included 333 patients (BPB =84, USPB =97, MTPB =152). Propensity score matching (PSM) generated 60, 77, and 78 matched pairs (USPB Results: MTPB exhibited significantly higher sensitivity than USPB and BPB (all P<0.05), with USPB ranking second and BPB the lowest. Specificity and PPV showed no intergroup differences. BPB had significantly lower NPV than MTPB (P=0.006), while USPB-NPV comparisons with other groups were non-significant. Complication rates were comparable across all modalities (P>0.05). Conclusions: MTPB is the optimal initial diagnostic method for suspected tuberculous pleurisy due to superior sensitivity. USPB, offering moderate accuracy with lower invasiveness, is a viable alternative if MTPB is unavailable. BPB should only be considered in resource-limited settings, with explicit recognition of its elevated false-negative risk necessitating rigorous clinical follow-up to prevent diagnostic delays. This study provides evidence-based guidance for selecting PB techniques.
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.