9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Comparative effectiveness of radial probe endobronchial ultrasound versus CT-guided needle biopsy for evaluation of peripheral pulmonary lesions: a randomized pragmatic trial.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In many patients the optimal method of investigation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) is not clear. We performed a prospective randomized pragmatic trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial lung biopsy (EBUS-TBLB) and CT-guided percutaneous needle biopsy (CT-PNB) for the investigation of PPL. Overall complication rates were higher in those undergoing CT-PNB (27% v 3%, p = 0.03), while diagnostic accuracy of EBUS-TBLB was shown to be non-inferior to that of CT-PNB. Expected diagnostic accuracy and complication rates are likely to differ for individual patients on the basis of specific complex clinicoradiologic factors, which will influence the cost-benefit analysis between EBUS-TBLB and CT-PNB for individual patients. Further studies are required to examine the effect of these factors on clinical decision-making.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          Respir Med
          Respiratory medicine
          1532-3064
          0954-6111
          Nov 2011
          : 105
          : 11
          Affiliations
          [1 ] Department of Respiratory Medicine, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville 3050, Australia. daniel.steinfort@mh.org.au
          Article
          S0954-6111(11)00285-X
          10.1016/j.rmed.2011.08.008
          21875783
          44de11c5-383f-4b65-9b97-309eea016e39
          Crown Copyright © 2011. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
          History

          Comments

          Comment on this article

          scite_

          Similar content412

          Cited by26