Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
We compared the diagnostic performances of conventional smears and cell block preparations of tissue samples obtained with endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration. We retrospectively analysed 451 patients (926 lymph nodes) who had undergone endobronchial ultrasound and for whom both smears and cell blocks were available and compared the diagnostic performances of these techniques when used alone and combined. Cell block preparations showed higher diagnostic performance over smears, but the combination was superior to either alone. The combination of smear and cell block techniques achieved a sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values of 92.5, 100, 100, 97.7 and 99.4, 95.0, 98.6, and 97.9 % for malignant and benign diseases, respectively. We recommend cell block preparations during endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00428-013-1374-8 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!