Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35192013›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2022

Bronchial wall parameters on CT in healthy never-smoking, smoking, COPD, and asthma populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ivan Dudurych, Susan Muiser, Niall McVeigh, Huib A M Kerstjens, Maarten van den Berge, Marleen de Bruijne, Rozemarijn Vliegenthart

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

7 authors.

Ivan DudurychDepartment of Radiology, EB49, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700RB, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Susan MuiserDepartment of Pulmonology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Niall McVeighDepartment of Cardiothoracic Surgery, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Huib A M KerstjensDepartment of Pulmonology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Maarten van den BergeDepartment of Pulmonology, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Marleen de BruijneDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Biomedical Imaging Group Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Rozemarijn VliegenthartDepartment of Radiology, EB49, University Medical Centre Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9700RB, Groningen, The Netherlands. r.vliegenthart@umcg.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7262-3376

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveResearch on computed tomography (CT) bronchial parameter measurements shows that there are conflicting results on the values for bronchial parameters in the never-smoking, smoking, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) populations. This review assesses the current CT methods for obtaining bronchial wall parameters and their comparison between populations.

methodsA systematic review of MEDLINE and Embase was conducted following PRISMA guidelines (last search date 25th October 2021). Methodology data was collected and summarised. Values of percentage wall area (WA%), wall thickness (WT), summary airway measure (Pi10), and luminal area (Ai) were pooled and compared between populations.

resultsA total of 169 articles were included for methodologic review; 66 of these were included for meta-analysis. Most measurements were obtained from multiplanar reconstructions of segmented airways (93 of 169 articles), using various tools and algorithms; third generation airways in the upper and lower lobes were most frequently studied. COPD (12,746) and smoking (15,092) populations were largest across studies and mostly consisted of men (median 64.4%, IQR 61.5 - 66.1%). There were significant differences between populations; the largest WA% was found in COPD (mean SD 62.93 ± 7.41%, n = 6,045), and the asthma population had the largest Pi10 (4.03 ± 0.27 mm, n = 442). Ai normalised to body surface area (Ai/BSA) (12.46 ± 4 mm

conclusionsStudies on CT-derived bronchial parameter measurements are heterogenous in methodology and population, resulting in challenges to compare outcomes between studies. Significant differences between populations exist for several parameters, most notably in the wall area percentage; however, there is a large overlap in their ranges. KEY POINTS: • Diverse methodology in measuring airways contributes to overlap in ranges of bronchial parameters among the never-smoking, smoking, COPD, and asthma populations. • The combined number of never-smoking participants in studies is low, limiting insight into this population and the impact of participant characteristics on bronchial parameters. • Wall area percent of the right upper lobe apical segment is the most studied (87 articles) and differentiates all except smoking vs asthma populations.

Indexed as

AsthmaPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveBronchiHumansMaleSmokingTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultsBronchiPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveReview, SystematicTomography, X-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID35192013
PMCPMC9279249

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.