ArticlePloS one2015
Reproducibility of Volumetric Computed Tomography of Stable Small Pulmonary Nodules with Implications on Estimated Growth Rate and Optimal Scan Interval.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Trial
- Assessing the impact of nodule features and software algorithm on pulmonary nodule measurement uncertainty for nodules sized 20 mm or less.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
- The impact of the lung EDRN-CVC on Phase 1, 2, & 3 biomarker validation studies.Cancer biomarkers : section A of Disease markers · 2022Article
- Multi-window CT based Radiomic signatures in differentiating indolent versus aggressive lung cancers in the National Lung Screening Trial: a retrospective study.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2019Article
- Evaluation of the 95% limits of agreement of the volumes of 5-year clinically stable solid nodules for the development of a follow-up system for indeterminate solid nodules in CT lung cancer screening.Journal of thoracic disease · 2018Article
- The Pursuit of Noninvasive Diagnosis of Lung Cancer.Seminars in respiratory and critical care medicine · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo use clinically measured reproducibility of volumetric CT (vCT) of lung nodules to estimate error in nodule growth rate in order to determine optimal scan interval for patient follow-up.
methodsWe performed quantitative vCT on 89 stable non-calcified nodules and 49 calcified nodules measuring 3-13 mm diameter in 71 patients who underwent 3-9 repeat vCT studies for clinical evaluation of pulmonary nodules. Calculated volume standard deviation as a function of mean nodule volume was used to compute error in estimated growth rate. This error was then used to determine the optimal patient follow-up scan interval while fixing the false positive rate at 5%.
resultsLinear regression of nodule volume standard deviation versus the mean nodule volume for stable non-calcified nodules yielded a slope of 0.057 ± 0.002 (r2 = 0.79, p<0.001). For calcified stable nodules, the regression slope was 0.052 ± 0.005 (r2 = 0.65, p = 0.03). Using this with the error propagation formula, the optimal patient follow-up scan interval was calculated to be 81 days, independent of initial nodule volume.
conclusionsReproducibility of vCT is excellent, and the standard error is proportional to the mean calculated nodule volume for the range of nodules examined. This relationship constrains statistical certainty of vCT calculated doubling times and results in an optimal scan interval that is independent of the initial nodule volume.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.