ArticleFrontiers in oncology2022
Electrical Impedance Analysis for Lung Cancer: A Prospective, Multicenter, Blind Validation Study.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 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.
- Multifrequency electrical impedance tomography (Mf-EIT) for the detection of breast cancer phantom anomalies.MethodsX · 2025Article
- The Diagnostic Accuracy of Electrical Impedance Spectroscopy-Assisted Colposcopy, HPV mRNA Test, and P16/Ki67 Immunostaining as CIN2+ Predictors in Greek Population.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Digital Pulmonology Practice with Phonopulmography Leveraging Artificial Intelligence: Future Perspectives Using Dual Microwave Acoustic Sensing and Imaging.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Segmental bioelectrical impedance analysis can detect differences between the affected and non-affected limbs in individuals with hip osteoarthritis.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- Electrical Impedance Tomography: From the Traditional Design to the Novel Frontier of Wearables.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hypothesis: Patients with cancer have different impedances or conductances than patients with benign normal tissue; thus, we can apply electrical impedance analysis (EIA) to identify patients with cancer. Method: To evaluate EIA's efficacy and safety profile in diagnosing pulmonary lesions, we conducted a prospective, multicenter study among patients with pulmonary lesions recruited from 4 clinical centers (Zhongshan Hospital Ethics Committee, Approval No. 2015-16R and 2017-035(3). They underwent EIA to obtain an Algorithm Composite Score or 'Prolung Index,' PI. The classification threshold of 29 was first tested in an analytical validation set of 144 patients and independently validated in a clinical validation set of 418 patients. The subject's final diagnosis depended on histology and a 2-year follow-up. Results: In total, 418 patients completed the entire protocol for clinical validation, with 186 true positives, 145 true negatives, 52 false positives, and 35 false negatives. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic yield were 84% (95% CI 79.3%-89.0%), 74% (95% CI 67.4%-79.8%), and 79% (95%CI 75.3%-83.1%), respectively, and did not differ according to age, sex, smoking history, body mass index, or lesion types. The sensitivity of small lesions was comparable to that of large lesions ( Conclusion: Electrical impedance analysis is a safe and efficient tool for risk stratification of pulmonary lesions, especially for patients with a suspicious lung lesion.
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.