ArticleJournal of thoracic disease2019
Comparing the diagnostic value of
Article in Journal of thoracic disease, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- EarlyCDT Lung blood test for risk classification of solid pulmonary nodules: systematic review and economic evaluation.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Pooled it
- Contrast-enhanced computed tomography versus positron emission tomography/positron emission tomography-computed tomography in suspected lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.Therapeutic advances in respiratory diseasePooled it
- Diagnostic value of lesion-to-spinal cord ratio and apparent diffusion coefficient in differentiating benign and malignant pulmonary nodules and masses.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Radiological and serological predictors of cavitary transformation in rheumatoid arthritis-associated pulmonary nodules: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Article
- The Prognostic Value of Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography in Clinical Stage I Lung Cancer Patients: A Propensity-Match Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Hyperpolarized Carbon-13 MRI in Breast Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Preoperative diagnosis of solitary pulmonary nodules with a novel hematological index model based on circulating tumor cells.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Performance of Machine Learning Models Based onMolecular imaging and radionuclide therapy · 2022Article
- Artificial intelligence assisted display in thoracic surgery: development and possibilities.Journal of thoracic disease · 2021Review
- Pulmonary Nodule and Mass: Superiority of MRI of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and T2-Weighted Imaging to FDG-PET/CT.Cancers · 2021Article
- Prone position [European radiology · 2021Article
- A narrative review of invasive diagnostics and treatment of early lung cancer.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Value of Shape and Texture Features fromDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis quantitative meta-analysis was conducted to provide an indirect comparison of the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT) with positron emission tomography (PET)/CT for differentiating benign and malignant solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs).
methodsPubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify eligible studies throughout November 2018, which differentiated benign and malignant SPNs using CT or PET/CT. The summary sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio (PLR and NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated using bivariate generalized linear mixed model and random-effects model. The diagnostic value of CT with PET/CT was indirectly evaluated using the ratio for diagnostic parameters.
resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC for CT were 0.94 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.87-0.97], 0.73 (95% CI: 0.64-0.80), 3.45 (95% CI: 2.60-4.58), 0.09 (95% CI: 0.04-0.17), 32.01 (95% CI: 15.10-67.86), and 0.89 (95% CI: 0.86-0.91), respectively. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC for PET/CT were 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.92), 0.78 (95% CI: 0.66-0.86), 3.97 (95% CI: 2.57-6.13), 0.15 (95% CI: 0.10-0.20), 24.04 (95% CI: 12.71-45.48), and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94), respectively. No significant differences were observed between CT and PET/CT for sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC.
conclusionsThis study used both CT and PET/CT with a moderate-to-high diagnostic value for differentiating benign and malignant SPNs and showed no significant differences in diagnostic parameters between CT and PET/CT.
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.