Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 746

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 access
Heerink, W. J., de Bock, G. H., de Jonge, G. J., Groen, H. J. M., Vliegenthart, R., Oudkerk, M.·2017·European Radiology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00330-016-4357-8

Cites

22 of 22 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 22 references

Cited by

See all 746

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.