The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic Yield and Safety of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Lung Nodules: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Open accessAbstract
Background: Electromagnetic navigation bronchoscopy (ENB) is an emerging endoscopic technique for the diagnosis of peripheral lung lesions. A thorough analysis of ENB's yield and safety is required for comparison to other sampling modalities. Objectives: To describe ENB's yield and safety profile. Methods: The MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for studies reporting ENB's yield for peripheral lung lesions. Two independent investigators extracted data and rated each study on a scale of methodological quality. Clearly defined performance outcomes were reconstructed and meta-analyzed. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were used to identify possible sources of study heterogeneity. Results: A total of 15 trials were included (1,033 lung nodules). A positive and definitive diagnosis was obtained after 64.9% of all ENB procedures (95% CI 59.2-70.3). Overall diagnostic accuracy was 73.9% (95% CI 68.0-79.2). Sensitivity to detect cancer was 71.1% (95% CI 64.6-76.8), with a negative predictive value of 52.1% (95% CI 43.5-60.6). Pneumothorax occurred in 3.1% of patients, requiring chest tube drainage in 1.6% of these cases. Original trials identified 6 variables associated with higher ENB yields: nodule location in the upper or middle lobes, nodule size, lower registration error, presence of a bronchus sign on CT imaging, combined use of an ultrasonic radial probe, and catheter suctioning as a sampling technique. Heterogeneity exploration revealed that studies using general anesthesia or rapid on-site cytological evaluation reported better yields. Conclusions: ENB is effective and particularly safe. Prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of several variables conditioning the yield of this technique.
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
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000) · Biometrics · doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x · Cited by 14,099
Whiting, P., Rutjes, A. W., Reitsma, J. B., Bossuyt, P. M., & Kleijnen, J. (2003) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-3-25 · Cited by 3,592
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
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
- Gex, G., Pralong, J. A., Combescure, C., Seijo, L., Rochat, T., & Soccal, P. M.
- Venue
- Respiration
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 2014
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 165-176
- ISSN
- 0025-7931 (ISSN-L)
- 1423-0356
- OpenAlex
- W2003275357
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 3.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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: Diagnostic Yield and Safety of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Lung Nodules: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000355710
- The paper
- Gex, G., Pralong, J. A., Combescure, C., Seijo, L., Rochat, T., & Soccal, P. M. (2014). Diagnostic Yield and Safety of Electromagnetic Navigation Bronchoscopy for Lung Nodules: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Respiration. https://doi.org/10.1159/000355710
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.