Evidence Hub

Diagnostic yield and safety of diagnostic techniques for pulmonary lesions: systematic review, meta-analysis and network meta-analysis

P. Balasubramanian, D. Abia-Trujillo, A. Barrios-Ruiz, A. Garza-Salas, A. Koratala, N. Chandra, Alejandra Yu Lee-Mateus, Gonzalo Labarca et al.

European Respiratory Review, 2024

56 citations

Abstract

Background With recent advancements in bronchoscopic procedures, data on the best modality to sample peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPLs) is lacking, especially comparing bronchoscopy with computed tomography-guided transthoracic biopsy or needle aspiration (CT-TBNA). Methods We performed a meta-analysis, pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis on studies reporting diagnostic yield and complications with the use of CT-TBNA, radial endobronchial ultrasound (rEBUS), virtual bronchoscopy (VB), electromagnetic navigation (EMN) or robot-assisted bronchoscopy (RAB) to sample PPLs. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield and the secondary outcome was complications. We estimated the relative risk ratios using a random-effects model and used the frequentist approach for the network meta-analysis. We performed extensive analysis to assess the heterogeneity including reporting bias, publication bias, subgroup and meta-regressional analysis. We assessed the quality of the studies using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) and QUADAS-Comparative (QUADAS-C). Results We included 363 studies. The overall pooled diagnostic yield was 78.1%, the highest with CT-TBNA (88.9%), followed by RAB (84.8%) and the least with rEBUS (72%). In the pairwise meta-analysis, only rEBUS showed inferiority to CT-TBNA. The network meta-analysis ranked CT-TBNA as likely the most effective approach followed by VB, EMN and RAB, while rEBUS was the least effective, with a…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free