The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Complication rates of CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy: meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To meta-analyze complication rate in computed tomography (CT)-guided transthoracic lung biopsy and associated risk factors. METHODS: Four databases were searched from 1/2000 to 8/2015 for studies reporting complications in CT-guided lung biopsy. Overall and major complication rates were pooled and compared between core biopsy and fine needle aspiration (FNA) using the random-effects model. Risk factors for complications in core biopsy and FNA were identified in meta-regression analysis. RESULTS: For core biopsy, 32 articles (8,133 procedures) were included and for FNA, 17 (4,620 procedures). Pooled overall complication rates for core biopsy and FNA were 38.8 % (95 % CI: 34.3-43.5 %) and 24.0 % (95 % CI: 18.2-30.8 %), respectively. Major complication rates were 5.7 % (95 % CI: 4.4-7.4 %) and 4.4 % (95 % CI: 2.7-7.0 %), respectively. Overall complication rate was higher for core biopsy compared to FNA (p < 0.001). For FNA, larger needle diameter was a risk factor for overall complications, and increased traversed lung parenchyma and smaller lesion size were risk factors for major complications. For core biopsy, no significant risk factors were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In CT-guided lung biopsy, minor complications were common and occurred more often in core biopsy than FNA. Major complication rate was low. For FNA, smaller nodule diameter, larger needle diameter and increased traversed lung parenchyma were risk factors for complications. KEY POINTS: • Minor complications are common in CT-guided lung biopsy • Major complication rate is low in CT-guided lung biopsy • CT-guided lung biopsy complications occur more often in core biopsy than FNA • Major complication rate is similar in core biopsy and FNA • Risk factors for FNA are larger needle diameter, smaller lesion size.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557 · Cited by 63,139
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Wang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,657
(2014) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 17,633
Screening for Lung Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement
Moyer, V. A., & on behalf of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (2014) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m13-2771 · Cited by 2,632
Society of Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guidelines
Sacks, D., McClenny, T. E., Cardella, J. F., & Lewis, C. A. (2003) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1097/01.rvi.0000094584.83406.3e · Cited by 1,714
Horeweg, N., van Rosmalen, J., Heuvelmans, M. A., van der Aalst, C. M., Vliegenthart, R., Scholten, E. T., ten Haaf, K., Nackaerts, K., Lammers, J.-W. J., Weenink, C., et al. (2014) · The Lancet Oncology · doi:10.1016/s1470-2045(14)70389-4 · Cited by 526
Self-citationWiener, R. S., Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., & Welch, H. G. (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-3-201108020-00003 · Cited by 503
Cited by
Folch, E. E., Pritchett, M. A., Nead, M. A., Bowling, M. R., Murgu, S. D., Krimsky, W. S., Murillo, B. A., LeMense, G. P., Minnich, D. J., Bansal, S., et al. (2019) · Journal of Thoracic Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2018.11.013 · Cited by 420
Metadata
- Authors
- Heerink, W. J., de Bock, G. H., de Jonge, G. J., Groen, H. J. M., Vliegenthart, R., & Oudkerk, M.
- Venue
- European Radiology
- Published
- 2016-04-23
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 138-148
- ISSN
- 0938-7994 (ISSN-L)
- 1432-1084
- OpenAlex
- W2336837860
- Cited by
- 746
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 30.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Complication rates of CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy: meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1007/s00330-016-4357-8
- The paper
- Heerink, W. J., de Bock, G. H., de Jonge, G. J., Groen, H. J. M., Vliegenthart, R., & Oudkerk, M. (2017). Complication rates of CT-guided transthoracic lung biopsy: meta-analysis. European Radiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4357-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.