Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Background: Endobronchial ultrasound transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is a safe and minimally invasive procedure for evaluating hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes. The reported sensitivity and specificity of EBUS-TBNA are 95% and 97%, respectively. A comparison of diagnostic sensitivity for lymph nodes suspected of lung cancer according to needle size in EBUS-TBNA is needed.
Objectives: To compare the diagnostic sensitivity of the 19-G, 21-G, 22-G and 25-G needles for lymph nodes suspected of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using EBUS-TBNA.
Methods: A literature search from PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, DOAJ and CENTRAL through October 2020 was performed by two reviewers. The extracted data were evaluated using STATA® and Open Meta Analyst software for meta-analysis with a binary method model to compare sensitivity, specificity and summary receiver operating characteristic curve for each needle size.
Results: Fourteen studies including 1296 participants were considered for the analysis. The overall sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA was 88.2% (95% CI 84%, 91%) and 93% (95% CI 88%, 95%) for the 19-G needle, 87.6% (95% CI 79.6%, 92.8%) for the 21-G needle and 85% (95% CI 80%, 88%) for the 22-G needle. The overall sensitivity of EBUS-TBNA for diagnosing NSCLC was 88.3% (95% CI, 81%, 93%) and 92.9% (95% CI, 85%, 97%) for the 19-G needle, 89.4% (95% CI 79.4%, 94.8%) for the 21-G needle and 82.1% (95% CI 66%, 91%) for the 22-G needle.
Conclusion: The 19-G, 21-G and 22-G needles present a similarly high diagnostic sensitivity in EBUS-TBNA. The 19-G needle provided better sample adequacy for molecular and immunohistochemical testing, improving diagnostic yield in this subgroup.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/crj.13436 | DOI Listing |