SynthesisBMC medical imaging2023
Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted imaging versus 18F-FDG PET/CT in differentiating pulmonary lesions: an updated meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Synthesis in BMC medical imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Radiomics signature based on robust features derived from diffusion data for differentiation between benign and malignant solitary pulmonary lesions.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2024Trial
- MRI for Lung Cancer Management: Any Closer to Clinical Application?Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Review
- Differentiating inflammatory and malignant pulmonary lesions on 3T lung MRI with radiomics of apparent diffusion coefficient maps and T2w derived radiomic feature maps.Journal of thoracic disease · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG PET/CT) for differentiating pulmonary nodules and masses.
methodsWe systematically searched six databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and three Chinese databases, to identify studies that used both DWI and PET/CT to differentiate pulmonary nodules. The diagnostic performance of DWI and PET/CT was compared and pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 was used to assess the quality of the included studies, and STATA 16.0 software was utilized to perform statistical analysis.
resultsOverall, 10 studies that enrolled a total of 871 patients with 948 pulmonary nodules were included in this meta-analysis. DWI had greater pooled sensitivity (0.85 [95% CI 0.77-0.90]) and specificity (0.91 [95% CI 0.82-0.96]) than PET/CT (sensitivity, 0.82 [95% CI 0.70-0.90]); specificity, (0.81, [95% CI 0.72-0.87]). The area under the curve of DWI and PET/CT were 0.94 (95% CI 0.91-0.96) and 0.87 (95% CI 0.84-0.90) (Z = 1.58, P > 0.05), respectively. The diagnostic odds ratio of DWI (54.46, [95% CI 17.98-164.99]) was superior to that of PET/CT (15.77, [95% CI 8.19-30.37]). The Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test showed no publication bias. The Spearman correlation coefficient test revealed no significant threshold effect. Lesion diameter and reference standard could be potential causes for the heterogeneity of both DWI and PET/CT studies, and quantitative or semi-quantitative parameters used would be a potential source of bias for PET/CT studies.
conclusionAs a radiation-free technique, DWI may have similar performance compare with PET/CT in differentiating malignant pulmonary nodules or masses from benign ones.
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.