FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3027088329> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3027088329 endingPage "1769" @default.
• W3027088329 startingPage "1753" @default.
• W3027088329 abstract "Background Bronchoscopy is a useful tool for the diagnosis of lesions near central airways; however, the diagnostic accuracy of these procedures for peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) is a matter of ongoing debate. In this setting, electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) is a technique used to navigate and obtain samples from these lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the sensitivity of ENB in patients with PPLs suspected of lung cancer. Research Question In patients with peripheral pulmonary lesion suspected of lung cancer, what is the sensitivity and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy compared to surgery or longitudinal follow up? Study Design and Methods A comprehensive search of several databases was performed. Extracted data included sensitivity of ENB for malignancy, adequacy of the tissue sample, and complications. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and the combined data were meta-analyzed using a bivariate method model. A summary receiver operatic characteristic curve (sROC) was created. Finally, the quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Results Forty studies with a total of 3,342 participants were included in our analysis. ENB reported a pooled sensitivity of 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 80.6%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%; I2 = 0%) for malignancy. The sROC showed an area under the curve of 0.955 (P = .03). ENB achieved a sufficient sample for ancillary tests in 90.9% (95% CI, 84.8%-96.9%; I2 = 80.7%). Risk of pneumothorax was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.0-3.0; I2 = 45.2%). We found subgroup differences according to the risk of bias and the number of sampling techniques. Meta-regression showed an association between sensitivity and the mean distance of the sensor tip to the center of the nodule, the number of tissue sampling techniques, and the cancer prevalence in the study. Interpretation ENB is very safe with good sensitivity for diagnosing malignancy in patients with PPLs. The applicability of our findings is limited because most studies were done with the superDimension navigation system and heterogeneity was high. Trial Registry PROSPERO; No.: CRD42019109449; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Bronchoscopy is a useful tool for the diagnosis of lesions near central airways; however, the diagnostic accuracy of these procedures for peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) is a matter of ongoing debate. In this setting, electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) is a technique used to navigate and obtain samples from these lesions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to explore the sensitivity of ENB in patients with PPLs suspected of lung cancer. In patients with peripheral pulmonary lesion suspected of lung cancer, what is the sensitivity and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy compared to surgery or longitudinal follow up? A comprehensive search of several databases was performed. Extracted data included sensitivity of ENB for malignancy, adequacy of the tissue sample, and complications. The study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, and the combined data were meta-analyzed using a bivariate method model. A summary receiver operatic characteristic curve (sROC) was created. Finally, the quality of evidence was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Forty studies with a total of 3,342 participants were included in our analysis. ENB reported a pooled sensitivity of 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 80.6%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%; I2 = 0%) for malignancy. The sROC showed an area under the curve of 0.955 (P = .03). ENB achieved a sufficient sample for ancillary tests in 90.9% (95% CI, 84.8%-96.9%; I2 = 80.7%). Risk of pneumothorax was 2.0% (95% CI, 1.0-3.0; I2 = 45.2%). We found subgroup differences according to the risk of bias and the number of sampling techniques. Meta-regression showed an association between sensitivity and the mean distance of the sensor tip to the center of the nodule, the number of tissue sampling techniques, and the cancer prevalence in the study. ENB is very safe with good sensitivity for diagnosing malignancy in patients with PPLs. The applicability of our findings is limited because most studies were done with the superDimension navigation system and heterogeneity was high. PROSPERO; No.: CRD42019109449; URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Flying Blind Despite All Our InstrumentsCHESTVol. 158Issue 4PreviewIt is important to periodically re-evaluate the performance of health technologies, particularly those that require significant operator expertise and are affected by hardware and software updates. In this issue of CHEST, Folch et al1 presented an updated meta-analysis on the sensitivity and safety of electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) for the diagnosis of lung cancer. The analysis is methodologically sound, with adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses standards and use of an established tool for assessing study quality (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2). Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W3027088329 created "2020-05-29" @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5000816678 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5004568141 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5016765252 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5029975675 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5038191968 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5041827466 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5049205321 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5060963036 @default.
• W3027088329 creator A5083860637 @default.
• W3027088329 date "2020-10-01" @default.
• W3027088329 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W3027088329 title "Sensitivity and Safety of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Lung Cancer Diagnosis" @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1493530065 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1888333807 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1940266261 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1965557028 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1966749426 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1973593314 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1976474436 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1982248135 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1989438660 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1991458728 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W1994158325 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2003275357 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2010089593 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2010263122 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2018696687 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2031300874 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2032187580 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2041871701 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2045210716 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2049032499 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2058131091 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2072608168 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2079213131 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2088028278 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2103117465 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2104962676 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2107638293 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2119777616 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2125435699 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2127764222 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2129952408 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2133564174 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2145733748 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2153043827 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2155793100 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2157347940 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2157767761 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2312650709 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2313261064 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2334991006 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2336837860 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2420225919 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2510704074 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2531929948 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2558435691 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2615663936 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2750388479 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2770571740 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2785704959 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2794812426 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2808731608 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2883797791 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2888004731 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2890358629 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2891397540 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2896363630 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2896550653 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2901580358 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2901659939 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2904647333 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W2987862066 @default.
• W3027088329 cites W4245161815 @default.
• W3027088329 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2020.05.534" @default.
• W3027088329 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32450240" @default.
• W3027088329 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3027088329 type Work @default.
• W3027088329 sameAs 3027088329 @default.
• W3027088329 citedByCount "91" @default.
• W3027088329 countsByYear W30270883292020 @default.
• W3027088329 countsByYear W30270883292021 @default.
• W3027088329 countsByYear W30270883292022 @default.
• W3027088329 countsByYear W30270883292023 @default.
• W3027088329 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5000816678 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5004568141 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5016765252 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5029975675 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5038191968 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5041827466 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5049205321 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5060963036 @default.
• W3027088329 hasAuthorship W3027088329A5083860637 @default.
• W3027088329 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W3027088329 hasConcept C126838900 @default.

• next