Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36136107›Full record

SynthesisEuropean radiology2023

The long-term course of subsolid nodules and predictors of interval growth on chest CT: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Linyu Wu, Chen Gao, Ning Kong, Xinjing Lou, Maosheng Xu

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Screening for Lung Cancer, Overdiagnosis, and Healthcare Utilization: A Nationwide Population-Based Study.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linyu WuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), 54 Youdian Road, Hangzhou, China.
Chen GaoDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), 54 Youdian Road, Hangzhou, China.
Ning KongDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), 54 Youdian Road, Hangzhou, China.
Xinjing LouThe First School of Clinical Medicine of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Hangzhou, China.
Maosheng XuDepartment of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University (Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine), 54 Youdian Road, Hangzhou, China. xums166@zcmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2396-1600
Zhejiang Chinese Medical University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82102128"Pioneer" and "Leading Goose" R&D Program of Zhejiang 2022C03046the Medical Health Science and Technology Project of Zhejiang Provincial Health Commission 2022KY230
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo calculate the pooled incidence of interval growth after long-term follow-up and identify predictors of interval growth in subsolid nodules (SSNs) on chest CT.

methodsA search of MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, Web of Science Core Collection, and Embase was performed on November 08, 2021, for relevant studies. Patient information, CT scanner, and SSN follow-up information were extracted from each included study. A random-effects model was applied along with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. Study quality was assessed by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and publication bias was assessed by Egger's test.

resultsOf the 6802 retrieved articles, 16 articles were included and analyzed, providing a total of 2898 available SSNs. The pooled incidence of growth in the 2898 SSNs was 22% (95% confidence interval [CI], 15-29%). The pooled incidence of growth in the subgroup analysis of pure ground-glass nodules was 26% (95% CI: 12-39%). The incidence of SSN growth after 2 or more years of stability was only 5% (95% CI: 3-7%). An initially large SSN size was found to be the most frequent risk factor affecting the incidence of SSN growth and the time of growth.

conclusionsThe pooled incidence of SSN growth was as high as 22%, with a 26% incidence reported for pure ground-glass nodules. Although the incidence of growth was only 5% after 2 or more years of stability, long-term follow-up is needed in certain cases. Moreover, the initial size of the SSN was the most frequent risk factor for growth. KEY POINTS: • Based on a meta-analysis of 2898 available subsolid nodules in the literature, the pooled incidence of growth was 22% for all subsolid nodules and 26% for pure ground-glass nodules. • After 2 or more years of stability on follow-up CT, the pooled incidence of subsolid nodule growth was only 5%. • Given the incidence of subsolid nodule growth, management of these lesions with long-term follow-up is preferred.

Indexed as

Lung NeoplasmsHumansRisk FactorsTomography Scanners, X-Ray ComputedTomography, X-Ray ComputedFollow-up studiesLung neoplasmsMeta-analysisRisk factorsTomography, x-ray computed

Identifiers

PMID36136107
PMCPMC9935651
OpenAlexW4297891377

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.