ArticlePloS one2022
Prevalence and consequences of non-adherence to an evidence-based approach for incidental pulmonary nodules.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Validation of a blood-based autoantibody test to assess lung cancer risk in 4-30 mm pulmonary nodules: a retrospective pooled analysis of four cohort studies.Future oncology (London, England) · 2026Article
- Adherence to guidelines for incidental pulmonary nodules: insights from a Nordic survey.Acta oncologica (Stockholm, Sweden) · 2025Observational
- Association of patient and health care organization factors with incidental nodule guidelines adherence: A multi-system observational study.Lung cancer (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Observational
- [Patient-centered, value-based management of incidental findings in radiology].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Review
- Assessing a biomarker's ability to reduce invasive procedures in patients with benign lung nodules: Results from the ORACLE study.PloS one · 2023Observational
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
Abstract
importanceDistinguishing benign from malignant pulmonary nodules is challenging. Evidence-based guidelines exist, but their impact on patient-centered outcomes is unknown.
objectiveTo understand if the evaluation of incidental pulmonary nodules that follows an evidence-based management strategy is associated with fewer invasive procedures for benign lesions and/or fewer delays in cancer diagnosis.
designRetrospective cohort study.
settingLarge academic medical center.
participantsAdults (≥18 years age) with an incidental pulmonary nodule discovered between January 2012 and December 2014. Patients with calcified nodules, prior nodules, prior diagnosis of cancer, high suspicion for pulmonary metastasis, or limited life expectancy were excluded. EXPOSURE: Nodule management strategy (pre-specified based on evidence-based practices). OUTCOME: Composite of any invasive procedure for a benign nodule or delay in diagnosis in patients with cancer (>3 month delay once probability of cancer was >15%).
resultsOf 314 patients that met inclusion criteria, median age was 61, 46.5% were men, and 66.5% had current or former tobacco use. The mean nodule size was 10.3 mm, mean probability of cancer was 11.8%, and 14.3% of nodules were malignant. Evaluation followed an evidence-based strategy in 245 patients (78.0%), and deviated in 69 patients (22%). The composite outcome occurred in 26 (8.3%) patients. Among patients whose nodule evaluation was concordant with an evidence-based evaluation, 6.1% (15/245) experienced the composite outcome versus 15.9% (11/69) of patients with an evaluation that deviated from evidence-based recommendations (P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: At a large academic medical center, more than 1 in 5 patients with an incidental pulmonary nodule underwent evaluation that deviated from evidence-based practice recommendations. Nodule evaluation that deviated from an evidence-based strategy was associated with biopsy of benign lesions and delays in cancer diagnosis, suggesting a need to improve guideline uptake.
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.