Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34872592›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2021

Solitary pulmonary nodule malignancy predictive models applicable to routine clinical practice: a systematic review.

Marina Senent-Valero, Julián Librero, María Pastor-Valero

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Marina Senent-ValeroDepartment of Public Health, History of Science and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Miguel Hernández University, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Alicante, Spain. marinasenentv@gmail.com.
Julián LibreroNavarrabiomed, Complejo Hospitalario de Navarra, UPNA, Pamplona, Spain.
María Pastor-ValeroDepartment of Public Health, History of Science and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Miguel Hernández University, Sant Joan d'Alacant, Alicante, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSolitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) is a common finding in routine clinical practice when performing chest imaging tests. The vast majority of these nodules are benign, and only a small proportion are malignant. The application of predictive models of nodule malignancy in routine clinical practice would help to achieve better diagnostic management of SPN. The present systematic review was carried out with the purpose of critically assessing studies aimed at developing predictive models of solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN) malignancy from SPN incidentally detected in routine clinical practice.

methodsWe performed a search of available scientific literature until October 2020 in Pubmed, SCOPUS and Cochrane Central databases. The inclusion criteria were observational studies carried out in low-risk population from 35 years old onwards aimed at constructing predictive models of malignancy of pulmonary solitary nodule detected incidentally in routine clinical practice. Studies had to be published in peer-reviewed journals, either in Spanish, Portuguese or English. Exclusion criteria were non-human studies, or predictive models based in high-risk populations, or models based on computational approaches. Exclusion criteria were non-human studies, or predictive models based in high-risk populations, or models based on computational approaches (such as radiomics). We used The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable Prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) statement, to describe the type of predictive model included in each study, and The Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) to evaluate the quality of the selected articles.

resultsA total of 186 references were retrieved, and after applying the exclusion/inclusion criteria, 15 articles remained for the final review. All studies analysed clinical and radiological variables. The most frequent independent predictors of SPN malignancy were, in order of frequency, age, diameter, spiculated edge, calcification and smoking history. Variables such as race, SPN growth rate, emphysema, fibrosis, apical scarring and exposure to asbestos, uranium and radon were not analysed by the majority of the studies. All studies were classified as high risk of bias due to inadequate study designs, selection bias, insufficient population follow-up and lack of external validation, compromising their applicability for clinical practice.

conclusionsThe studies included have been shown to have methodological weaknesses compromising the clinical applicability of the evaluated SPN malignancy predictive models and their potential influence on clinical decision-making for the SPN diagnostic management. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020161559.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsSolitary Pulmonary NoduleHumansLungPrognosisRisk FactorsClinical settingLung neoplasmsPrediction modelsSolitary pulmonary noduleSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34872592
PMCPMC8650360

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.