Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37741928›Full record

ReviewInsights into imaging2023

Factors influencing the outcome of volumetry tools for pulmonary nodule analysis: a systematic review and attempted meta-analysis.

Erique Guedes Pinto, Diana Penha, Sofia Ravara, Colin Monaghan, Bruno Hochhegger, Edson Marchiori, Luís Taborda-Barata, Klaus Irion

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insights into imaging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Towards optimized CT lung cancer screening scan protocols.The British journal of radiology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Lung nodule localization and size estimation on chest tomosynthesis.Journal of medical imaging (Bellingham, Wash.) · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Erique Guedes PintoR. Marquês de Ávila E Bolama, Universidade da Beira Interior Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal. ericguedespinto@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6648-9270
Diana PenhaR. Marquês de Ávila E Bolama, Universidade da Beira Interior Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal.
Sofia RavaraR. Marquês de Ávila E Bolama, Universidade da Beira Interior Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal.
Colin MonaghanLiverpool Heart and Chest Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Thomas Dr, Liverpool, L14 3PE, UK.
Bruno HochheggerUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA.
Edson MarchioriFaculdade de Medicina, Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, Bloco K - Av. Carlos Chagas Filho, 373 - 2º Andar, Sala 49 - Cidade Universitária da Universidade Federal Do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro - RJ, 21044-020, Brasil.
Luís Taborda-BarataR. Marquês de Ávila E Bolama, Universidade da Beira Interior Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde, 6201-001, Covilhã, Portugal.
Klaus IrionManchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Royal Infirmary, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9WL, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Health systems worldwide are implementing lung cancer screening programmes to identify early-stage lung cancer and maximise patient survival. Volumetry is recommended for follow-up of pulmonary nodules and outperforms other measurement methods. However, volumetry is known to be influenced by multiple factors. The objectives of this systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42022370233) are to summarise the current knowledge regarding factors that influence volumetry tools used in the analysis of pulmonary nodules, assess for significant clinical impact, identify gaps in current knowledge and suggest future research. Five databases (Medline, Scopus, Journals@Ovid, Embase and Emcare) were searched on the 21st of September, 2022, and 137 original research studies were included, explicitly testing the potential impact of influencing factors on the outcome of volumetry tools. The summary of these studies is tabulated, and a narrative review is provided. A subset of studies (n = 16) reporting clinical significance were selected, and their results were combined, if appropriate, using meta-analysis. Factors with clinical significance include the segmentation algorithm, quality of the segmentation, slice thickness, the level of inspiration for solid nodules, and the reconstruction algorithm and kernel in subsolid nodules. Although there is a large body of evidence in this field, it is unclear how to apply the results from these studies in clinical practice as most studies do not test for clinical relevance. The meta-analysis did not improve our understanding due to the small number and heterogeneity of studies testing for clinical significance. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Many studies have investigated the influencing factors of pulmonary nodule volumetry, but only 11% of these questioned their clinical relevance in their management. The heterogeneity among these studies presents a challenge in consolidating results and clinical application of the evidence. KEY POINTS: • Factors influencing the volumetry of pulmonary nodules have been extensively investigated. • Just 11% of studies test clinical significance (wrongly diagnosing growth). • Nodule size interacts with most other influencing factors (especially for smaller nodules). • Heterogeneity among studies makes comparison and consolidation of results challenging. • Future research should focus on clinical applicability, screening, and updated technology.

Indexed as

CancerComputed tomographyLung cancerScreeningSpiralSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37741928
PMCPMC10517915

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.