II. Abstract Background EBUS-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) is the preferred first-line technique for mediastinal lymph node sampling. However, its cytological specimens are often insufficient when tissue architecture is critical, such as benign granulomatous and lymphoproliferative disorders. EBUS-guided transbronchial mediastinal cryobiopsy (EBUS-MCB) has emerged as a technique that retrieves larger, histologically preserved tissue samples. Methods This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA-2020 guidelines (PROSPERO:CRD420251034456). PubMed and Scopus were searched through January 2026 for studies comparing diagnostic yield of EBUS-MCB with EBUS-TBNA in adults with mediastinal lymphadenopathy. Pooled odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by I 2 and Cochran's Q test, and risk of bias by QUADAS-2. Results Twenty-four studies (including five randomized controlled trials) enrolling 2182 patients across 33 centres (11 countries) were included. EBUS-MCB demonstrated significantly higher overall diagnostic yield (90.8%vs74.5%; OR:3.40; 95%CI:2.55–4.54; p < 0.001). The benefit was greatest in lymphoma (OR:6.40; 95%CI:3.07–13.38; p < 0.001) and benign mediastinal diseases (OR 3.37; 95% CI 2.04–5.57; p < 0.001), including sarcoidosis (OR:3.30; 95%CI:1.66–6.55; p < 0.001). In malignant disease the benefit was modest. No significant difference was observed for lung malignancy sub-group. EBUS-MCB rescued diagnosis in one in five patients where EBUS-TBNA had failed. No procedure-related mortality was reported. Conclusion Both EBUS-MCB and EBUS-TBNA establish diagnoses in patients with mediastinal lymphadenopathy; however, EBUS-MCB demonstrated superior diagnostic yield, particularly in lymphoma and benign mediastinal disease. These findings support selective incorporation of EBUS-MCB into EBUS bronchoscopy practice, especially when histologic tissue architecture is essential for diagnosis.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gupta et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: