Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23649435›Full record

GuidelineChest2013

Clinical and organizational factors in the initial evaluation of patients with lung cancer: Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines.

David E Ost, Sai-Ching Jim Yeung, Lynn T Tanoue, Michael K Gould

Abstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Chest, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

86 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

David E OstDepartment of Pulmonary Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, TX. Electronic address: dost@mdanderson.org.
Sai-Ching Jim YeungDepartment of Emergency Medicine, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, TX; Department of Endocrine, Neoplasia & Hormonal Disorders, MD Anderson Cancer Center, The University of Texas, Houston, TX.
Lynn T TanoueDepartment of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Michael K GouldDepartment of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, CA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI Scott Kopetz · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis guideline is intended to provide an evidence-based approach to the initial evaluation of patients with known or suspected lung cancer. It also includes an assessment of the impact of timeliness of care and multidisciplinary teams on outcome.

methodsThe applicable current medical literature was identified by a computerized search and evaluated using standardized methods. Recommendations were framed using the approach described by the Guidelines Oversight Committee of the American College of Chest Physicians. Data sources included MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

resultsInitial evaluation should include a thorough history and physical examination; CT imaging; pulmonary function tests; and hemoglobin, electrolyte, liver function, and calcium levels. Additional testing for distant metastases and paraneoplastic syndromes should be determined on the basis of these results. Paraneoplastic syndromes may have an adverse impact on cancer treatment, so they should be controlled rapidly with the goal of proceeding with definitive cancer treatment in a timely manner. Although the relationship between timeliness of care and survival is difficult to quantify, efforts to deliver timely care are reasonable and should be balanced with the need to attend to other dimensions of health-care quality (eg, safety, effectiveness, efficiency, equality, consistency with patient values and preferences). Quality care will require multiple disciplines. Although it is difficult to assess the impact, we suggest that a multidisciplinary team approach to care be used, particularly for patients requiring multimodality therapy.

conclusionsThe initial evaluation of patients with lung cancer should include a thorough history and physical examination, pulmonary function tests, CT imaging, basic laboratory tests, and selective testing for distant metastases and paraneoplastic syndromes.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineCombined Modality TherapyDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ImagingDiagnostic Tests, RoutineHumansLung NeoplasmsMedical History TakingPatient Care TeamPhysical ExaminationQuality Assurance, Health CareRespiratory Function TestsReview Literature as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23649435
PMCPMC4694609

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.