ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
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.
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Resectable lung lesions malignancy assessment and cancer detection by ultra-deep sequencing of targeted gene mutations in plasma cell-free DNA.Journal of medical genetics · 2019Trial
- Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.Insights into imaging · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study sought to evaluate 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.
methodsThe volumes of 226 solid nodules that had been clinically stable for 5 years were measured in 186 patients (53 female never-smokers, 36 male never-smokers, 51 males with <30 pack-years, and 46 males with ≥30 pack-years) using a three-dimensional semiautomated method. Volume changes were evaluated using three methods: percent change, proportional change and growth rate. The 95% limits of agreement were evaluated using the Bland-Altman method.
resultsThe 95% limits of agreement were as follows: range of percent change, from ±34.5% to ±37.8%; range of proportional change, from ±34.1% to ±36.8%; and range of growth rate, from ±39.2% to ±47.4%. Percent change-based, proportional change-based, and growth rate-based diagnoses of an increase or decrease in ten solid nodules were made at a mean of 302±402, 367±455, and 329±496 days, respectively, compared with a clinical diagnosis made at 809±616 days (P<0.05).
conclusionsThe 95% limits of agreement for volume change in 5-year stable solid nodules may enable the detection of an increase or decrease in the solid nodule at an earlier stage than that enabled by a clinical diagnosis, possibly contributing to the development of a follow-up system for reducing the number of additional Computed tomography (CT) scans performed during the follow-up period.
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.