ArticleScientific reports2021
Diagnostic and prognostic implications of 2018 guideline for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in clinical practice.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-Analysis of Interobserver Agreement in Assessment of Interstitial Lung Disease Using High-Resolution CT.Radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of novel diagnostic tools for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the United States.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Prevalence and clinical features of interstitial lung disease in patients with psoriasis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2024Article
- Measurement Variability of Same-Day CT Quantification of Interstitial Lung Disease: A Multicenter Prospective Study.Radiology. Cardiothoracic imaging · 2024Article
- Article
- Diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers for progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease.PloS one · 2023Article
- The impact of deep learning reconstruction in low dose computed tomography on the evaluation of interstitial lung disease.PloS one · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implications of the 2018 updated guideline for the diagnosis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) in clinical practice compared to 2011 guideline. This study involved 535 patients including 339 IPF and 196 non-IPF, and we retrospectively evaluated CT classifications of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) by two guidelines. Interobserver agreement of 2018 criteria showed moderate reliability (κ = 0.53) comparable to 2011 (κ = 0.56) but interobserver agreement for probable UIP was fair (κ = 0.40). CT pattern of indeterminate for UIP was associated with better prognosis compared with the other groups (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.36, p < 0.001). Compared to possible UIP, probable UIP demonstrated a lower positive predictive value (PPV, 62.9% vs 65.8%). In analysis of patients with CT patterns of non-definite UIP, diagnosing IPF when CT pattern showed probable UIP with lymphocyte count ≤ 15% in BAL fluid, and either male sex or age ≥ 60 years showed a high specificity of 90.6% and a PPV of 80.8% in the validation cohort. The 2018 criteria provide better prognostic stratification than the 2011 in patients with possible UIP. BAL fluid analysis can improve the diagnostic certainty for IPF diagnosis in patients with probable UIP CT pattern.
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.