ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2018
Diagnostic performance of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography in the management of solitary pulmonary nodule: a meta-analysis.
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 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnosis value ofBMC medical imaging · 2023Pooled it
- EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- The Role of F-18 FDG PET/CT in the Evaluation of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules.Saudi medical journal · 2026Article
- A machine learning-based PET/CT model for automatic diagnosis of early-stage lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Models Based onMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- Is It Possible to Establish a Reliable Correlation between Maximum Standardized Uptake Value of 18-Fluorine Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography and Histological Types of Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer? Analysis of the Italian VATS Group Database.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Macrovasculature and positron emission tomography (PET) standardized uptake value in patients with lung cancer.Medical physics · 2021Article
- Prone position [European radiology · 2021Article
- Contribution ofMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2021Article
- Diagnostic Performance of PET or PET/CT with Different Radiotracers in Patients with Suspicious Lung Cancer or Pleural Tumours according to Published Meta-Analyses.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 2020Review
- Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging and positron emission tomography/computed tomography in pulmonary nodules: a prospective study.Polish journal of radiology · 2019Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the setting of solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs), fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (
methodsA computerized research, including published articles from 2012 and 2017, was carried out.
resultsA total of twelve studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled Se, Spe, PLR, NLR, PPV, NPV and accuracy index (AI) with relative 95% confidence intervals (CI) were 0.819 (95% CI: 0.794-0.843), 0.624 (95% CI: 0.582-0.665), 2.190 (95% CI: 1.950-2.440), 0.290 (95% CI: 0.250-0.330), 0.802 (95% CI: 0.783-0.819), 0.652 (95% CI: 0.618-0.684) and 0.649 (95% CI: 0.625-0.673), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 7.049 with a relative 95% CI between 5.550 and 8.944.
conclusionsThe results suggest
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.