ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Robotic-Assisted Bronchoscopy for Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions: Current Evidence, Clinical Applications, and Future Directions.
Review in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) is a persistent clinical challenge, made more pressing by the expansion of low-dose CT lung cancer screening. Conventional and earlier navigational bronchoscopy, including electromagnetic navigation, historically achieved diagnostic yields of approximately 60-70%, with CT-to-body divergence contributing to nondiagnostic sampling. This narrative review, prepared using the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles (SANRA), summarizes robotic-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) platform technology, procedural optimization, diagnostic performance, safety, molecular tissue adequacy, and emerging applications. A structured search was updated through September 2026; this is not a systematic review. Using the strict definition recommended by the American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians (ATS/ACCP), the most comprehensive meta-analysis reported a pooled RAB diagnostic yield of 69.6%, while the prospective multicenter TARGET study reported an adjudicated strict yield of 61.6%. Higher pooled estimates of approximately 84-87% generally use intermediate definitions that the ATS/ACCP statement recommends against as primary diagnostic-yield measures. RAB pneumothorax rates are approximately 2% in pooled analyses, compared with approximately 20-25% for CT-guided transthoracic needle biopsy. In the randomized RELIANT trial, RAB was non-inferior, but not superior, to electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy; in VERITAS, navigational bronchoscopy as a category was non-inferior to transthoracic needle biopsy for 12-month diagnostic accuracy, with fewer pneumothoraces. RAB is a useful option for selected PPLs, but strict-definition performance is more modest than frequently quoted intermediate yields. Outcomes depend on lesion characteristics, sampling strategy, operator experience, center volume, and imaging infrastructure.
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.