ReviewEuropean clinical respiratory journal2019
The value of computed tomography in discriminating malignant from non-malignant causes of unresolved unilateral pleural effusions: a systematic review.
Review in European clinical respiratory journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective analysis of the sensitivity of reporting of thoracic computed tomography for pleural malignancy: an Australian multi-centre study.Journal of thoracic disease · 2025Article
- Added value of 40 keV virtual monoenergetic images for diagnosing malignant pleural effusion on chest CT.Japanese journal of radiology · 2024Article
- Malignant Pleural Effusions: Updates in Diagnosis and Management.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The scientific background in expert-opinion papers for recommending Computed Tomography (CT) in unilateral pleural exudates is based on studies including patients with other findings than unilateral pleural effusions or selected patients undergoing thoracoscopy. Therefore, we performed a systematic review investigating the sensitivity of CT for predicting malignancy in patients with unilateral, non-transudative, pleural effusions. A search strategy was developed with the assistance of a medical information specialist at our university library. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and articles citing the included studies. No date restrictions were applied (the first included paper was published in 2001 (1)), and only literature in English was included. We used the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 for bias assessment. We registered the protocol at PROSPERO (CRD42018094830). Five studies were included, two prospective and three retrospective, all performed in Western Europe. No study reported diagnostic values for patients with unilateral, non-transudative pleural effusions only; one study did for unilateral pleural effusions. In the remaining studies, most patients had unilateral effusions and non-transudative effusions. Patients were primarily males and >70 years. All but one study found a high incidence of malignancy, dominated by malignant pleural mesothelioma. All studies were limited by risk of bias and applicability, predominantly regarding study population, pretests and index test. The current evidence supporting the sensitivity of CT for predicting malignancy in unilateral pleural effusions (both non-transudative and all types of effusion) is very low and did not allow meta-analysis. Standardization of patient population and CT protocol may facilitate conclusions of futures studies.
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.