SynthesisEuropean radiology2024
Performance of Lung-RADS in different target populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Node-RADS: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance, category-wise malignancy rates, and inter-observer reliability.European radiology · 2025Pooled it
- A Real-World Assessment of Stage I Lung Cancer Through Electronic Nose Technology.Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer · 2024Trial
- Anatomical-Contextual YOLOv8-YOLOv12 Framework for Pulmonary Nodule Detection in CT: Multi-Organ Learning and Cross-Dataset Validation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Radiologists' diagnostic confidence in surgically referred pulmonary nodules: a routine computed tomography report retrospective analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- The use of a novel urine biosensor platform for lung cancer detection during lung cancer screening.JTCVS open · 2026Article
- Nodule Characteristics, Clinical Risk Factors, and Radiologist Experience as Predictors of Positive Baseline LDCT Screening Results.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- [Application of Explainable Deep Learning in Differentiating Benign from Malignant Pulmonary Space-occupying Lesions and Classifying Pathological Subtypes of Lung Cancer].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2025Article
- Differences in lung cancer screening outcomes and follow-up by patient, provider and place-based characteristics in Missouri and Illinois: A cross-sectional study.Research square · 2025Article
- Retrospective Analysis Comparing Lung-RADS v2022 and British Thoracic Society Guidelines for Differentiating Lung Metastases from Primary Lung Cancer.Biomedicines · 2025Article
- Comparison of Lung-RADS Version 2022 and British Thoracic Society Guidelines in Classifying Solid Pulmonary Nodules Detected at Lung Cancer Screening CT.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesMultiple lung cancer screening studies reported the performance of Lung CT Screening Reporting and Data System (Lung-RADS), but none systematically evaluated its performance across different populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the performance of Lung-RADS (versions 1.0 and 1.1) for detecting lung cancer in different populations.
methodsWe performed literature searches in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases on October 21, 2022, for studies that evaluated the accuracy of Lung-RADS in lung cancer screening. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, and heterogeneity was explored in stratified and meta-regression analyses.
resultsA total of 31 studies with 104,224 participants were included. For version 1.0 (27 studies, 95,413 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.90-0.99) and pooled specificity was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87-0.92). Studies in high-risk populations showed higher sensitivity (0.98 [95% CI: 0.92-0.99] vs. 0.84 [95% CI: 0.50-0.96]) and lower specificity (0.87 [95% CI: 0.85-0.88] vs. 0.95 (95% CI: 0.92-0.97]) than studies in general populations. Non-Asian studies tended toward higher sensitivity (0.97 [95% CI: 0.91-0.99] vs. 0.91 [95% CI: 0.67-0.98]) and lower specificity (0.88 [95% CI: 0.85-0.90] vs. 0.93 [95% CI: 0.88-0.96]) than Asian studies. For version 1.1 (4 studies, 8811 individuals), pooled sensitivity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.83-0.96) and specificity was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.67-0.90).
conclusionAmong studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0, considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity was noted, explained by population type (high risk vs. general), population area (Asia vs. non-Asia), and cancer prevalence. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Meta-regression of lung cancer screening studies using Lung-RADS version 1.0 showed considerable heterogeneity in sensitivity and specificity, explained by the different target populations, including high-risk versus general populations, Asian versus non-Asian populations, and populations with different lung cancer prevalence. KEY POINTS: • High-risk population studies showed higher sensitivity and lower specificity compared with studies performed in general populations by using Lung-RADS version 1.0. • In non-Asian studies, the diagnostic performance of Lung-RADS version 1.0 tended to be better than in Asian studies. • There are limited studies on the performance of Lung-RADS version 1.1, and evidence is lacking for Asian populations.
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.