Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31862440›Full record

ArticleChest2020

Multidisciplinary Team-Based Management of Incidentally Detected Lung Nodules.

Francys C Verdial, David K Madtes, Guang-Shing Cheng, Sudhakar Pipavath, Richard Kim, Jesse J Hubbard, Megan Zadworny, Douglas E Wood, Farhood Farjah

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Francys C VerdialDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
David K MadtesDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Guang-Shing ChengDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; Clinical Research Division, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA.
Sudhakar PipavathDepartment of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Richard KimDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Valley Medical Center, Renton, WA.
Jesse J HubbardMorsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Megan ZadwornyDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Douglas E WoodDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Farhood FarjahDepartment of Surgery, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA. Electronic address: ffarjah@uw.edu.
University of Washington · USUniversity of South Florida · USValley Medical Center · US

Funding

Renewal: Gastrointestinal Surgery Outcomes Research FellowshipT32DK070555 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI FLUM, DAVID R · 2010 to 2024
$3.6M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK070555
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEach year, > 1.5 million Americans are diagnosed with an incidentally detected lung nodule. Practice guidelines attempt to balance the benefit of early detection of lung cancer with the risks of diagnostic testing, but adherence to guidelines is low. The goal of this study was to determine guideline adherence rates in the setting of a multidisciplinary nodule clinic and describe reasons for nonadherence as well as associated outcomes.

methodsThis cohort study included 3 years of follow-up of patients aged ≥ 35 years with an incidentally detected lung nodule evaluated in a multidisciplinary clinic that used the 2005 Fleischner Society Guidelines.

resultsAmong 113 patients, 67% (95% CI, 58-76) were recommended a guideline-concordant nodule evaluation; 7.1% (95% CI, 3.1-13) and 26% (95% CI, 18-25) were recommended less or more intense evaluation, respectively. In contrast, 58% (95% CI, 48-67), 22% (95% CI, 18-25), and 23% (95% CI, 16-32) received a guideline-concordant, less intense, or more intense evaluation. The most common reason for recommending guideline-discordant care was concern for two different diagnoses that would each benefit from early detection and treatment. A majority of lung cancer diagnoses (88%) occurred in patients who received guideline-concordant care. There were no lung cancer cases in those who received less intense nodule care.

conclusionsA multidisciplinary nodule clinic may serve as a system-level intervention to promote guideline-concordant care, while also providing a multidisciplinary basis by which to deviate from guidelines to address the needs of a heterogeneous patient population.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerSolitary Pulmonary NoduleCohort StudiesEarly Medical InterventionFemaleGuideline AdherenceHealth Services Needs and DemandHumansIncidental FindingsLung NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedPatient Care TeamPractice Guidelines as TopicRisk AssessmentUnited Statesclinical decision-makingguidelineslung neoplasmlung nodule

Identifiers

PMID31862440
PMCPMC7268436
OpenAlexW2996590863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.