ArticlePloS one2018
Proposed method of histological separation between connective tissue disease-associated interstitial pneumonia and idiopathic interstitial pneumonias.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Autophagy and Apoptosis in Affected Skin and Lungs in Patients with Systemic Sclerosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Recognition of Connective Tissue Disease-Related Interstitial Pneumonia Based on Histological Score-A Validation Study of an Online Diagnostic Decision Support Tool.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Interstitial lung disease pathology in systemic sclerosis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2021Review
- Histologic features suggesting connective tissue disease in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.Scientific reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIdiopathic interstitial pneumonia (IIP) and connective tissue disease -associated interstitial pneumonia (CTD-IP) are the two most common types of interstitial pneumonia. IIP and CTD-IP share common histological features, yet their clinical management is different. Separation of the two conditions based solely on histology can be challenging, and there are no established criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe selected 105 consecutive cases of IIP (79 usual interstitial pneumonia and 26 non-specific interstitial pneumonia) and 49 cases of CTD-IP for derivation and 32 cases of IIP and 10 cases of CTD-IP for validation. Fourteen histological parameters were evaluated independently by two pathologists for derivation group and graded into 0 to 3. The association between the score for each marker and a diagnosis of CTD was investigated using Fisher's exact test and stepwise logistic regression analysis. A formula for calculating the probability of IIP and CTD-IP was constructed by the markers identified in the regression test with coefficients for each finding. The formula was confirmed using validation case group.
resultsStepwise logistic regression analysis showed that plasmacytosis, lymphoid follicle with germinal center, and airspace fibrin were suggestive of CTD-IP and that fibroblastic foci, smooth muscle hyperplasia, cellular IP, dense perivascular collagen, and fat metaplasia were suggestive of IIP. The formula used to calculate the probabilities based on estimated values for each finding was created, and user-friendly web based app was composed at www.ctdip.com. On the validation study, 30 out of 32 IIP and eight out of 10 CTD-IPs were distinguished correctly by the app (Specificity: 93%, Sensitivity: 80%).
conclusionsWe identified histological markers and derived a practical formula and user-friendly app to distinguish CTD-IPs from IIP.
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.