search button

Endobronchial ultrasound guided‑transbronchial needle aspiration vs. conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses: A meta‑analysis

  • Authors:
    • Tianyi Zhu
    • Xinji Zhang
    • Junnan Xu
    • Jun Tian
    • Hui Li
    • Dan Liu
    • Ruohua Chen
    • Qiang Li
    • Chong Bai

  • View Affiliations

  • Published online on: October 23, 2013     https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2013.206
  • Pages: 151-155
Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )
Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )


Abstract

Whether an endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) is required for transbronchial needle aspiration (TBNA) in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses is currently a disputed subject. Previous studies have demonstrated that EBUS‑TBNA performs better compared to conventional TBNA as it is capable of sampling in real-time compared with conventional TBNA. However, some clinicians consider conventional TBNA to be sufficient for diagnosis. In this meta‑analysis, we evaluated these two methods according to diagnostic yield. A search was conducted through PubMed, Embase and the proceedings of major conferences, for studies comparing TBNA with EBUS‑TBNA in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses. The identified studies were evaluated for publication bias and heterogeneity. The primary outcome was diagnostic yield. Pooled odds ratio (OR) estimated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the fixed‑effects model. Five studies, including a total of 407 patients, were included in the meta‑analysis. The EBUS‑TBNA arm was associated with a significantly higher OR compared to that of the TBNA arm in terms of diagnostic yield (OR=2.72, 95% CI: 1.72‑4.30, P<0.001). There was no evidence of heterogeneity (I2=0%, P=0.540) or publication bias (Egger's test, P=0.568; Begg‑Mazumdar test, P=0.806). In conclusion, EBUS‑TBNA and conventional TBNA are safe and provide good diagnostic yield in the diagnosis of hilar and mediastinal masses and lymphadenopathies; however, EBUS‑TBNA performs better compared to conventional TBNA, with a shorter aspiration time and higher sensitivity.
View Figures
View References

Related Articles

Journal Cover

January-February 2014
Volume 2 Issue 1

Print ISSN: 2049-9450
Online ISSN:2049-9469

Sign up for eToc alerts

Recommend to Library

  • Journal Metrics
  • Impact Factor: 1.4
  • Ranked
    (total number of cites)
  • CiteScore: 2.8
  • CiteScore Rank: Q3: #250/404 Oncology
  • Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP): 0.55
  • SCImago Journal Rank (SJR): 0.446
International Symposium on Molecular Medicine Conference Banner
The Cancer Story
World Congress on Advances in Oncology and International Symposium on Molecular Medicine Conference Banner
World Academy Of Sciences Banner
Heyday Road Banner

0

Copy and paste a formatted citation
x
Spandidos Publications style
Zhu T, Zhang X, Xu J, Tian J, Li H, Liu D, Chen R, Li Q and Bai C: Endobronchial ultrasound guided‑transbronchial needle aspiration vs. conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses: A meta‑analysis. Mol Clin Oncol 2: 151-155, 2014
APA
Zhu, T., Zhang, X., Xu, J., Tian, J., Li, H., Liu, D. ... Bai, C. (2014). Endobronchial ultrasound guided‑transbronchial needle aspiration vs. conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses: A meta‑analysis. Molecular and Clinical Oncology, 2, 151-155. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2013.206
MLA
Zhu, T., Zhang, X., Xu, J., Tian, J., Li, H., Liu, D., Chen, R., Li, Q., Bai, C."Endobronchial ultrasound guided‑transbronchial needle aspiration vs. conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses: A meta‑analysis". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2.1 (2014): 151-155.
Chicago
Zhu, T., Zhang, X., Xu, J., Tian, J., Li, H., Liu, D., Chen, R., Li, Q., Bai, C."Endobronchial ultrasound guided‑transbronchial needle aspiration vs. conventional transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of mediastinal masses: A meta‑analysis". Molecular and Clinical Oncology 2, no. 1 (2014): 151-155. https://doi.org/10.3892/mco.2013.206