ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Impact of diagnostic guidelines on the diagnosis of hypersensitivity pneumonitis.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current concepts in the diagnosis and treatment of hypersensitivity pneumonitis: a narrative review.Respiratory research & clinical practice · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP) is an immune-mediated interstitial lung disease from exposure to environmental antigens. Diagnosing HP could be challenging. The American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) and American Thoracic Society/Japanese Respiratory Society/and Asociación Latinoamericana del Tórax (ATS/JRS/ALAT) have published diagnostic guidelines in 2021 and 2020 respectively. The CHEST guideline uses four grades of confidence: confident (>90%), provisional high (70-89%), provisional low (51-69%), and unlikely (≤50%). The ATS/JRS/ALAT guideline uses five grades of confidence: definite (>90%), high (80-89%), moderate (70-79%), low (51-69%) and not excluded (≤50%). In this study, we determined how these two guidelines could have affected the diagnosis of HP made before the guidelines. Methods: Two hundred and fifty-nine adult patients from a previous cohort with HP (ICD-9:495) made between Jan. 1, 2008, and Dec. 31, 2013, at Duke University Medical Center were included. We simplified the diagnostic confidence into three categories so we could compare the guidelines: high (≥90%), intermediate (51-89%), and low (≤50%). Results: There were 156 female and 103 male. Mean age was 58 (range: 20-90). 68.8% of the patients had restrictive defects (FVC < 80% pred) and 48.6% had lung biopsy. The CHEST guideline classified 33.6% of the patients into high, 59.5% into intermediate and 6.9% into low confidence categories. The ATS/JRS/ALAT guideline classified 29.7% of the patients into high, 21.2% into intermediate and 49.0% into low confidence categories ( Discussion: In our HP cohort with two-thirds of the patients with restrictive defects, we found the two guidelines had fair agreement in diagnosing HP with or without identifiable IAs. They agreed more when the diagnostic confidence was high. When the diagnostic confidence was lower, however, the ATS/JRS/ALAT guideline was more stringent. Clinicians should be aware of the differences between the two guidelines when evaluating patients suspicious of HP.
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.