ArticleChest2020
Derivation and Validation of a Diagnostic Prediction Tool for Interstitial Lung Disease.
Article in Chest, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Natural language processing-based intervention to detect interstitial lung abnormalities.The European respiratory journal · 2026Article
- Lung Auscultation for Detecting Interstitial Lung Disease in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Systemic Sclerosis: Retrospective Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Association of serological markers and interstitial lung disease in patients with suspected myositis.Medicine · 2025Observational
- Artificial Intelligence Enabled Lung Sound Auscultation in the Early Diagnosis and Subtyping of Interstitial Lung Disease.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Speaking of the "Devil": Diagnostic Errors in Interstitial Lung Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Clinically Relevant Biomarkers in Connective Tissue Disease-Associated Interstitial Lung Disease.Immunology and allergy clinics of North America · 2023Review
- Spirometry Reference Equations Including Existing and Novel Parameters.The open respiratory medicine journal · 2023Article
- Clinical implication of interstitial lung abnormality in elderly patients with early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.Thoracic cancer · 2022Article
- Response.Chest · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on byResponse.2021
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundInterstitial lung disease (ILD) results in high morbidity and health-care utilization. Diagnostic delays remain common and often occur in nonpulmonology settings. Screening for ILD in these settings has the potential to reduce diagnostic delays and improve patient outcomes. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study sought to determine whether a pulmonary function test (PFT)-derived diagnostic prediction tool (ILD-Screen) could accurately identify incident ILD cases in patients undergoing PFT in nonpulmonology settings. STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsClinical and physiologic PFT variables predictive of ILD were identified by using iterative multivariable logistic regression models. ILD status was determined by using a multi-reader approach. An ILD-Screen score was generated by using final regression model coefficients, with a score ≥ 8 considered positive. ILD-Screen test performance was validated in an independent external cohort and applied prospectively to PFTs over 1 year to identify incident ILD cases at our institution.
resultsVariables comprising the ILD-Screen were age, height, total lung capacity, FEV
interpretationThe ILD-Screen showed good test performance in predicting ILD across diverse geographic settings and when applied prospectively. Systematic ILD-Screen application has the potential to reduce diagnostic delays and facilitate earlier intervention in patients with ILD.
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.