Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42516899›Full record

ArticleERJ open research2026

The addition of radial endobronchial ultrasound to electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy: the NEBULA study - a randomised controlled trial.

Amanda Dandanell Juul, Arman Arshad, Alice V Christophersen, Pernille Kristiansen, Alexis Pulga, Rana Bibi, Torben Riis Rasmussen, Ole Hilberg, Nicoline M Andersen, Christian B Laursen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ERJ open research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Amanda Dandanell JuulOdense Respiratory Research Unit (ODIN), Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9103-9549
Arman ArshadDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Alice V ChristophersenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
Pernille KristiansenDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Disease, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Alexis PulgaDepartment of Respiratory Medicine and Infectious Disease, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Rana BibiDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark.
Torben Riis RasmussenDepartment of Respiratory Diseases and Allergology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
Ole HilbergDepartment of Internal Medicine, Vejle Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3075-3463
Nicoline M AndersenOdense Respiratory Research Unit (ODIN), Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Christian B LaursenOdense Respiratory Research Unit (ODIN), Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6382-9906

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bronchoscopic biopsies are a valuable tool for diagnosing small peripheral lung lesions suspected of cancer. Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) has been developed to guide the bronchoscopist to the lesion and radial endobronchial ultrasound (rEBUS) to confirm the presence lesion once reached. The combination of modalities might improve the diagnostic yield; however, only a few studies with diverting results have been published. The objective of the present study was to investigate whether the combination of rEBUS and ENB is superior to ENB alone for diagnosing peripheral lung lesions suspected of lung cancer in a pragmatic study setting representing the daily clinical practices and challenges. Methods: The study was conducted according to CONSORT guidelines. All patients were randomised for either ENB or ENB+rEBUS. The reference test was either a final histopathologic diagnosis or determined by 6 months of computed tomography surveillance. Analyses were performed using intention-to-treat, with only procedures with a definitive diagnosis categorised as "diagnostic". Results: Of 200 patients included from four centres, 183 were randomised and included in the final analyses. There was no difference in diagnostic yield between the two groups (43.8% Conclusion: ENB+rEBUS is a safe and well-tolerated procedure, but not superior to ENB alone.

Identifiers

PMID42516899
PMCPMC13402982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.