Observational studyGeneral thoracic and cardiovascular surgery2022
Ground glass opacity: can we correlate radiological and histological features to plan clinical decision making?
Observational study in General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automatic assessment of lung involvement in systemic sclerosis using deep learning.Journal of research in medical sciences : the official journal of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · 2026Article
- A Comprehensive Review of Radiomics in Pulmonary Nodule Management: Clinical Applications and Standardization Dilemmas.Current medical imaging · 2026Review
- Enhanced management strategy of synchronous percutaneous biopsy and microwave ablation in patients with lung ground-glass opacities undergoing antithrombotic treatment: a clinical perspective on our experience.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- A Case of Pulmonary Metastasis from Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma of the Hard Palate Exhibiting Ground Glass Nodules.Surgical case reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Versus Pathological Staging in Patients with Resected Ground Glass Pulmonary Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe spectrum of ground glass opacity (GGO) is a diagnostic and clinical management quandary. The role of computed tomographic scans in detecting malignant GGO has inter-observer variability. Pure GGO have been traditionally thought to be predominantly benign in nature and has long volume doubling times. This study was undertaken to correlate the findings of radiology and histology of ground glass opacities at our institute.
methodsThis study is a retrospective observational study of patients who underwent lung resection surgery for radiology proven ground glass opacities between January 2010 and December 2018. A total of 115 patients were included in the study based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and were analysed.
resultsThe patients were divided into two groups; pure GGO (n = 50), mixed GGO (n = 65). The pathological tumour size was ≤ 2 cm in 51% of the patients and 27 patients had the size between 2.1 and 3.0 cm. The predominant histopathologic feature was lepidic predominance in 54 patients followed by 24 patients with acinar predominance. Among patients with radiological tumour size of ≤ 2 cm, pure GGO was present in 48% of the patients. Among patients with pure GGO, 96% of the patients had no solid component. 44 patients had only single CT scan before proceeding to surgery. All these patients had mixed GGO.
conclusionOur study concludes pure GGOs, though lacking solid component have a high propensity to be malignant. The role of repeated CT surveillance in this context without offering curative surgery may be questionable.
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.